




















































































































































































































































. 






















SPEECHES 


AT 


THE BAR AND IN THE SENATE, 

BY THE EIGHT HONOURABLE 

WM. CONYNGIIAM, LORD PLUNKET, 

LORD HIGH CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND. 


EDITED, 

WITH A MEMOIR AND HISTORICAL NOTICES, 


BY JOHN CASHEL HOEY. 


DUBLIN: 

JAMES DUFFY, WELLINGTON QUAY, 

AND 

22, PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON. 

1865. 

L. 


(A 



Dublin: Frinted by Pattison Jolly, 
22, Essex-at. West, 



PREFACE, 


This is the first collection of Lord Plunket’s Speeches that has beer, 
published, and is, I believe, the most complete that could be raado 
injustice to his fame, from the materials that are extant. 

When I undertook the task of editing them, I found the general 
impression, among persons well acquainted with his lordship’s 
career, to be, that it would be impossible to procure reliable reports of 
any, but a very few, of his great orations. In two of the best memoirs 
of him, that in Mr. D. Owen Madden’s Ireland and its Rulers, 
and that which appeared after his lordship’s decease, in the Times 
newspaper, it was positively asserted, that there were only two or 
three, that could at all be considered accurate; and that even the best 
report gave but a dull shadow of his extraordinary eloquence. I can 
well believe this to be the case. It is the concurrent-testimony of the 
greatest cotemporary critics, and of his rivals as well as his colleagues. 
It is true too, that the ordinary reports of Hansard and the news¬ 
papers—like all other reports, in the period before short-band had 
been earned to a perfection equal to that of the photograph, are but 
slow and meagre transcripts. I take it, however, that there is in¬ 
trinsic evidence enough to show, that the majority of the speeches 
which I have printed in this volume, are authentic versions of the very 
words used by Plunket, on the most memorable occasions that he 
appeared in public ; and that at least a dozen of them fully sustain 
his fame. The only credit I claim for my share in the book is, that 
I have taken some pains in searching and collating, in order to verify, 
whatever reports I could depend upon, as exhibiting marks of his 
$wn revision ; or if not, as being the fullest and most careful extant. 



. 

* 




I DEDICATE THIS BOOK, 

TO MY FRIEND, 

CHARLES GAYAN DUFFY, 

MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT FOR THE BOROUGH OF NEW ROSS, 

THE BEST MAN AND THE BEST IRISHMAN 

I HAVE EVER KNOWN, 

IN FAREWELL MEMORIAL 

OF HAFFY DAYS THAT ARE NO MORE, 

AND OF ALL THAT I OWE TO HIS COUNSEL, EXAMPLE; 

AND AFFECTION. 


November, 13 35. 












































N 















CONTENTS 


Memoir ...... 

The Press, March 3, 1798 
The State of the Nation, March 5, 1798 
The Sheares’ Case, July 4, 1798 
The Union, December 9, 1798 
The Union, January 22, 1799 
"he Union, January 28, 1799 
*ie Place Bill, May 1G, 1799 
The Union, May 18, 1799 
The Union, January 15, 1800 
r he Union May 26, 1800 
Albert Emmet, September 19, 1803 
The Threshers, December 5, 1806 . 

Catholic Relief, April 9, 1807 

The Catholic Claims, February 25, 1813 

The Speaker's Address to the Regent, April 22, 1814 

The War of 1815, May 25, 1815 . . 

The Navy Estimates, March 27, 1816 . 

The State of Ireland, April 26, 1816 . , 

The Window Tax, April 21, 1818 

The Peterloo Massacre, November 23, 1819 

The Seditious Meetings’ Bill, December 13, 1819 

Reply to Brougham, December 22, 1819 

Dublin City Election, June 24, 1820 . 

Catholic Relief, February 28, 1821 
Doctor Milner, March 16, 1821 
The Catholic Bills, March 16, 1821 
The State of Ireland, April 22, 1822 . 


I’AGK 

3 

25 

30 

35 

39 

40 

52 

53 
56 
58 
75 
82 
96 

106 

111 

135 

143 

147 

150 

157 

161 

174 

180 

183 

187 

221 

223 

238 







11 


CONTENTS. 


PAGK 

The Bottle Riot, February 3, 1823 . . . 246 

Ex officio Informations, April 15, 1823 . . 271 

The Roman Catholic Question, April 17, 1823 . . 291 

The Sheriff of Dublin, April 22, 1823 . . 304 

Ex officio Informations, May 2, 1823 . . . 308 

Irish Insurrection Act, May 12, 1823 . . . 310 

Burials in Ireland, March 22, 1824 . . . 313 

Unlawful Societies in Ireland Bill, February 11, 1825 . 324 

The Catholic Claims, February 28, 1825 . . . 343 

Elective Franchise in Ireland Bill, April 26, 1825 . 354 

Catholic Relief, June 10, 1828 . . . . 365 

Roman Catholic Oaths, March 13, 1829 . . 381 

Catholic Relief Bill, April 4, 1829 . • . 389 

Parliamentary Reform, March 28, 1831 • . 409 

Parliamentary Reform, October 6, 1831 . . . 416 

Tithes, February 27, 1832 .... 433 

The Lord Chancellor of Ireland, March 2, 1831 . . 435 

Farewell to the Bar, June 21, 1841 . . . 440 

Aitendix —The King against Waller O’Grady . . 443 




MEMOIR 


The heralds and annalists tell us that among the Danes of Dublin who min¬ 
gled with our Norman conquerors and helped them to carry their castles 
and their marchmen to the very edge of Ulster, within a few years after 
Strongbow’s landing, was an Ostman chief, named Plunkett of Bewley. 
The name meets us often in the early chronicles of the Pale—now in bor¬ 
der battles with the Clan Colla, or the Iriar.s of Dalaradia, now in high 
administrative and judicial office at the Castle. Three peerages, the baro- 
ries of Killeen (merged in the earldom of Fingall), of Dunsany, and of Louth, 
had ennobled the old Norse blood with honours as ample as their estates, whicli 
dotted the whole country from the fair margin of Lough Crew, to the low park 
lands of the City—when in the reign of King Henry the Eighth, Sir Patrick 
Plunkett, a knight of the house of Louth, married the grand-daughter of the 
Lord High Chancellor, Sir William Welles/ From one scion of their family the 
martyr primate, Oliver Plunkett of Armagh, derived the innocent blood shed 
on Tyburn HilL From a younger son of the same Sir Patrick, the Reverend 
Patrick Plunket of Glennan, in the county of Monaghan, more than a century 
ago, claimed descent. The particulars of the pedigree baffle Ulster King-at- 
Arms, but it rests, to the family satisfaction, at either end on the Chancery- 
woolsack. 

A son was bom to fhe Rev. Patrick Plunket in 1725, and entered upon the 
Presbyterian ministry by license of the presbytery of Monaghan in the year 1747. 
The following year the young Levite was unanimously called to the congregation 
of Enniskillen. He was early distinguished among his brethren for the keen, 
wiry wit, the subtle, hard-headed logic, and the free-thinking turn which are 
characteristic of the Ulster Presbyterians, and for twenty years he preached the 
gospel, with occasional Socinian strictures, in the chief kirk of Fermanagh. 
There he married “ Mary, sister of Redmond Conyngham, Esq.,” and there, in ihe 
year 1750, was bom, his son Patrick, afterwards as eminent in physic as Wil¬ 
liam was in politics and law. In July, 1764, while the minister and his wife 
were on one of those long excursions which the duties of a yet neglected minis¬ 
try sometimes entailed, late at night Mrs. Plunket was taken ill in a co'untry 
part of Fermanagh, fortunately within reach of the manse of a brother minis¬ 
ter, and there delivered safely of the son, w ho was afterwards named William 
Conyngham Plunket. 

Next door, under the same roof with the minister’s house in Enniskillen, was 
the house of a Protestant burgess named Magee, to whose wife was born a son at 
the same time. The two children were often nursed at the same breast, shut 


* Burke's “ Pceraee " 



IV 


MEMOIR. 


marbles, pegged tops, learned the rudiments and the humanities, entered college, 
and proceeded pari passu , faithful friends and steadfast allies through life to¬ 
gether, to the highest dignities of the Anglo-Irish constitution in Church and 
State. This young William Magee, with the hot no-Popery blood of the Innis- 
killing Dragoons in his veins, was aftef wards Archbishop of Dublin, and author of 
the famous Protestant tractate on the Atonement 

In the year 1768, the Rev. Thomas Plunket obeyed a call from Strand-street con¬ 
gregation, the oldest of the Irish Socinian chapels, and shifted his pulpit to Dublin. 
The memoirs mention his intimacy with the eccentric, benevolent parson, Premium 
Madden, and with that gentle genius, his curate, Philip Skelton ; and that he was 
particularly appreciated and courted bv all the wits and politicians of the time of 
Charles Lucas and Anthony Malone. He died poor in 1778, and his congregation 
undertook the charge of his family. From the subscription raised, all the minister’s 
little debts were paid off and the cost of his funeral defrayed; and with the balance 
of the fund his widow and daughters established a quiet tea warehouse, patronised 
by pious elders and the Strand-street matrons, on the profits of which the family 
was decently maintained and the sons liberally educated. After they had become 
wealthy and famous, their sisters still, with true northern independence, kept the 
little shop, and sold the best Bohea in Dublin. 

In 1779, William Magee and William Plunket stood for sizarship together in 
Trinity College, and -were rejected, but entered as non-decremented pensioners, 
and chummed during their college course. In the same examination Mr. Sealy 
Townsend, afterwards Master in Chancery, and Dr. Miller, the gifted author of 
“ History Philosophically considered,” were candidates.* Townsend took the 
first place, Plunket the third or fourth, Miller the fifth—neither was so distin¬ 
guished during the under-graduate course as Townsend, until the second exami¬ 
nation of the fourth year when Plunket stopped his certificate on equal answer¬ 
ing. He is said to have been dull in the college course; but it was not in the lec¬ 
ture-hall or the tutor’s room that the students of Trinity then received the most 
valuable elements of that education, which for half a century afterwards sup¬ 
plied Ireland with so distinguished a list of lawyers, politicians, and preachers. 
It was in the gallery of the House of Commons where Grattan’s glorious elo¬ 
quence was preaching the new born nationality. It was in the Historical 
Society, where the rights of man and the principles of history were debated 
with a force and a fire which their practical application to a revolutionary period 
inspired and made real among a generation of young men, perhaps the most 
splendid in abilities and acquirements who have ever studied together in Ireland. 

A grand group might be selected from any seance of the Historical Society in these 
days of the triumphant Volunteers. A versatile, impetuous revolutionist, intensely 
insubordinate, always meditating love or murder, with a reputation for military, 
political, literary, any and every kind of talent, when he pleases to apply it, which 
is by no means perpetually—him they call Theobald Wolfe Tone. A gentle youth, 
fresh from the country, with softly winning manners, and a tongue from which 
language flows with a peculiar happy murmur, is named Charles Kendal Bushe. 
A calm, self-possessed, young citizen, with a Spartan purity of character, and a 
serene loftiness of intellect, which exercises a strange sway over all his comrades 
—this is Addis Emmet, younger brother of the great dead lion of the Historical 
Society, Temple Emmet. Philosophic Miller, ready of speech, racy of hard 
study, but never dull with it, for his brain was an alembic able to fuse any sub- 

* Memoir of Dr. Miller in the Dublin University Magazine. 


MEMOIR. 


V 

ject. Honest Peter Burrowes, who, when his generous human heart was stirred 
to its tranquil depths (seldom, indeed, it must be allowed) could utter beyond 
any other man among them what would make you burn or shudder with genuine 
passion. Whitley Stokes, of a most amiable nature, and a beautifully classic 
and cultivated mind. Magee, who rushed into a controversy at a charge, 
trusting to the sheer force of his intellect and character to carry him through. 
Wild Tom Goold, acting the admirable Crichton, flirting for half a day in Sack- 
ville-street with all his heart, and then giving half an hour and half his head 
to astrology, Roman law, or some equally useless abstruse and absurd study. 
Saurin, somewhat senior to the rest, with his dry and unrelenting logic, which 
you saw cut in every line of that hard Huguenot head.* The heads were all heads 
of mark indeed, and there were more of as good quality, some of which were 
lifted dripping on the gibbet twenty years afterwards, some of which wore 
judges’ wigs or bishops’ mitres, and one or two in Spanish breaches, waved cocked 
hats with the tricolour and eagle of Napoleon’s Irish Legion on them. But all 
these young men admitted one master mind in the grand game of debate. 
None of his cotemporaries has challenged the supremacy of Plunket in the talent 
of oratory. As it is said now that his reported speeches are nothing to what they 
were when delivered, so it was long before his youthful comrades could be in¬ 
duced to admit that his finest efforts at the Bar or even in Parliament could be 
compared to the impromptu sallies of that earlier and more familiar forum. 
Even then they spoke, not so much of the figurative brilliancy and poetic har¬ 
mony of his language, which young men most admire in eloquence, and which, 
in Grattan’s dithyrambic days were all the fashion, as of an irresistible roll of; 
argument which swelled like wave after wave, clear, rapid, and overwhelming. 1 
It was vain to play rhetorical fireworks against such an element. Then you 
aroused the keen excoriating irony which flowed like bile off his vigorous intellect. 

Plunket entered Lincoln’s Inn in 1784, and was called to the Bar in 1787. 
i Old attorneys say, that his circuit practice at first was of a humble class, and of 
a popular character; and that he began by moving Civil Bills at Trim, where 
the northern circuit then commenced for half-guinea fees—according to the cus¬ 
tom of the junior bar before assistant barristers were known. He was so poor 
that he had to sell his gold medal, and rode his first circuit on a horse lent for 
the service by Peter Burrowes. In these early difficult days, he lodged with a 
young Catholic merchant from Monaghan, in Eccles-street, and in the faithful 
intimacy which he always maintained with his old friends, in after days of pride 
and place, often said, half in jest and half in earnest, that the Catholics of Ire¬ 
land owed much of the service he gave to their cause, to his ancient regard for 
honest Michael Hughes. The following anecdote tells the accident which is said 
to have first revealed his particular power as a pleader:— 

“While yet unknown, he happened to be acquainted with a gentleman who 
conducted the business of an eminent solicitor. The proprietor gave his man of 
business instructions for a bill in a very heavy suit, who, trusting to the abilities of 
his young friend, gave him the instruction and the fee. The bill, a voluminous one, 
was quickly despatched; the name of the pleader was inquired and introduced; 
he became the confidential adviser and constant guest of the solicitor, and a 
connexion of a closer nature soon followed.”! 

Hereby we learn how Plunket came to marry into the house of John M*Caus- 

* Journals of the Historical Society. 

t A valuable Memoir in the Metropolitan Magazine, by John O’Donoghue, Esq., of the 
Irish Bar. 


VI 


MEMOIR. 


land, the great northern solicitor, and to devote himself at so early a period to the 
practice of the Equity Courts. 

Magee and Bushe, Tone and Burrowes, all rising young men, were of his 
more particular friendship in these days; and although he did not join the little 
Political Club in which Tone brought together the rest of his college mates, with 
his adjutant Tom Russell, and his reformed aristocrat Sir Lawrence Parsons, 
and the rising national writers, Drennan and Pollock, yet there seems to have 
been between the two young men a racy, hearty appreciation and genuine 
regard for each other. One day in November Term, 1792, Tone, who has been 
working the Catholic cause with an ardour, activity, and courage, quite new in 
the councils of the committee, walks down from their office to the hall of tho 
Four Courts to take note of the vane of opinion there. “ Wonderful,” he writes 
in that wonderful journal of his, “ wonderful to see the rapid change in the 
minds of the bar on the Catholic question ; almost every body favourable. Some 
for an immediate abolition of all Penal laws; certainly the most magnanimous 
mode, and the wisest. All sorts of men, and especially lawyer Plunket, take a 
pleasure in girding at Mr. Hutton (himself), 1 who takes at once all their seven 
points on his buckler, thus!’ Exceeding good laughing. Mr. Hutton called 
Marat. Sundry barristers apply to him for protection in the approaching rebel¬ 
lion. Lawyer Plunket applies for Carton, which Mr. Hutton refuses, inasmuch 
as the Duke of Leinster is his friend, but offers him Curraghmore, the seat of the 
Marquis of Waterford. This Mr. Hutton does to have a rise out of Marcus 
Beresford, who is at his elbow listening. Great laughter thereat.” A few years 
afterwards, it was one of the same Beresfords whose black and brutal heart sug¬ 
gested to the Castle the too atroeious idea, that Tone should be dragged out 
while life was yet oozing through the unhappy death wound he had inflicted, 
and hanged in his very agony according to the letter of the law. 

Even so soon a vast difference of opinion was beginning to exhibit itself 
among the generation of young men who had worshipped Grattan and Liberty at 
college, and who had been proud to couple the names of George Washington and 
Edmund Burke together. The French Revolution had been for several years in 
action, and was fast erupting into anarchy and general dissolution of law, order, 
and religion; spreading, by a kind of volcanic sympathy, into all surrounding 
nations. Edmund Burke had taken his memorable stand against demo¬ 
cracy, far in advance of the general opinions of his party, but was gratified to find 
that his doctrines had found several zealous disciples among the rising young 
men of his native country. Bushe, who had lived a little in France, wrote a 
pamphlet to sustain his side of the controversy; so did Goold. Tone at once 
took the opposite side, and vowed that Pains was the prophet. Plunket was 
early in his life and to its last day in all his politics a disciple of Burke, tempered 
by Blackstone. He hated despotism much, but he hated anarchy more. He 
had a great and equal antipathy to the constructiveness and to the destructive¬ 
ness of democracy—the antipathy to ancient establishments, and the rage for 
system-building which it engendered. He saw in the English constitution re¬ 
formed and unclogged as it had been by the early American republicans, the 
ideal of a great system of political dynamics, in whose careful balance of powers, 
a civilized and Christian community might hope to enjoy all the happiness and 
liberty which government can confer. He added to these principles intelii- 
gence and the reverence of a constitutional lawyer for a stat^ system, to whica 
so much had been contributed by the sagest authorities of hi» owr profession. 
And he believed that if the parliamentary patriots of Ireland, undazzled by re- 


MEMOIR. 


VH 


*ent democratic conquests in America and France, and undismayed by the ter¬ 
rorism and corruption which rendered the king’s government scandalous, should 
take their stand upon the concessions compelled by Grattan, they might in time 
succeed in widening the basis of the constitution of ’82, so as to admit all its 
subjects to equal rights and franchises, and to perfectly conserve the estates of 
the realm in just and co-ordinate relations, by gradual internal reform. All his 
interests and ambition went the same way. His daily business was with rights 
and properties, which had grown with or under the existing system. His ambi¬ 
tion was the same which had raised Pery and Burgh, Wolfe and Yelverton, to 
fame, office, and fortune. Tone on the other hand was a thorough revolutionist 
by nature, station, and ambition. From his boyhood, revolt had been the very 
breath of his being—now and then against his father whom withal he so tenderly 
loved, but who would insist upon the boy’s wearing a wig or a fellow’s gown in¬ 
stead of a shako; against the Provost and Fellows, against the Benchers and 
Bar; but above all, against the atrocious injustice which was then denominated 
Government in Ireland. He detested his profession. The existing system afforded 
him no other fixed arena for his eminent and various abilities—abilities equal to 
any of the positions which daily fell to men of his genre in the democratic coun¬ 
tries ; compared to which any position he could hope to attain in Ireland was a 
mere vegetation. But ardent as his ambition was, it is only just to him to say 
that he never allowed it to have more than a secondary influence in his plans for 
the subversion of the English government. With all his heart and soul, he 
abominated the loathsome corruption and the unmerciful tyranny of that sys¬ 
tem. At the time it presented to the view a suspicious and ferocious executive; 
a parliament, powerless unless for shame or evil, and as much a byeword for cor¬ 
ruption as any bagnio in the city; the ascendancy political and religious, there¬ 
fore social also, and in all the three aspects intolerant and intolerable, of a small 
privileged sect over two vast segments of the population, the Catholics and the 
Dissenters, who had no communion in the constitution, and hardly the least in¬ 
fluence with the administration. Grattan’s constitutional revolution had utterly 
failed to remedy this system. The government of Ireland had relapsed into a 
worse state than the state before ’82. If it could by possibility be destroyed 
by an unconstitutional revolution, any result whatever could hardly have failed 
to be more gratifying to God and man. The people failing, the English minister 
did, in fact, effect a result as extreme by an unconstitutional counter-revolution, 
the Union. Such results as America, Holland, and even France, before the 
bloody era of Robespiere, had attained, by armed revolutions, it was Tone’s am¬ 
bition and mission to produce in Ireland—Republican Institutions based upon a 
Declaration of the Rights of Man, guided by the patriotic elements youth and 
genius, and fortified by a vigorous military spirit. 

It is right to remember, in judging Plunket’s subsequent conduct, especially 
at the time of Robert Emmet’s trial, that at so early a period and with a man 
whom he regarded so highly as he did Tone, right or wrong, he had taken de¬ 
cided issue against the Irish republicans. 

Long before Tone was obliged to leave Ireland, the political opposition had 
even bred a personal estrangement between the two friends. One day after a long 
successful interview with “ my friend, citizen Carnot, the organiser of victory,” 
Tone writes in his journal, “ Well, my friend, Plunket, (but I sincerely forgive 
him) and my friend Magee, whom I have not yet forgiven, would not speak to 
me in Ireland because I was a Republican. Sink or swim, I stand to-day on 
as high ground as either of them.’’^Indeed Tone always speaks of Plunket with 


Mil 


MEMOIR. 


such a fondness as shows that he believed in the perfect sincerity of his convic¬ 
tions ; and on the very eve of Tone’s exile, Plunket writes to him thus:— 

Dear Tone :—I embrace with great pleasure the idea and opportunity of re¬ 
newing our old habits of intimacy and friendship. Long as they have been 
interrupted, I can assure you that no hostile sentiment towards you ever found 
admittance into my mind. Regret, allow me the expression, on your account, 
apprehension for the public, and great pain at being deprived of the social, happy, 
and unrestrained intercourse which had for so many years subsisted between us, 
were the sum of my feelings. Some of them, perhaps, were mistaken, but there 
can be no use now in any retrospect of that kind. It is not without a degree of 
melancholy I reflect that your present destination makes it probable that we may 
never meet again, and talk and laugh together, as we used to do, though it is 
difficult to determine whether these jumbling times might not again bring us 
together. In all events, I shall be most happy to hear from you, and write to 
you, often and fully, and to hear of your well being, wherever you may be. If 
I had known your departure was to have been so very immediate, 1 would not 
have suffered you to slip away without a personal meeting. I shall hope to hear 
from you as soon as you get to America. 1 formerly had friends there. The 
unfortunate death of my brother you have probably heard of; perhaps however, 
I may still have some there who might be useful to you. Let me know where, 
and in what line you think of settling, and, if any of my connections can be of 
use, I will write to them warmly.—1 beg you will give my best regards to Mrs. 
Tone, and believe me, dear Tone, with great truth, your friend, 

W. Pluxket. 

May 29th, 1795. 

Tone sailed for America, thence to France, and within the next three 
years, had engaged the French and Dutch governments to direct three expedi¬ 
tions to the shores of Ireland; had served with the French army as adjutant- 
general; was acting in confidential council with Hoche, Bonaparte, Carnot, 
and as well known and accredited in the bureaux of the Directory and at 
the Hague, as the official of any regular legation. Three years of miraculous 
work! While Bushe lamented in the House of Commons that he should be 
“wasting on the desert air of an American plantation, the brightest talents 
that I ever knew a man to be gifted with”—doubting withal, perhaps, if in such 
quick and teeming times, the elements of a revolutionary statesman and soldier, 
were indeed or would long remain mouldering among Yankee maize and tobacco. 
Plunket lived in Dominick-street; sat under Chancellor Clare as regularly a 9 
•his register; got his silk gown, and among the innumerable titles, mortgages, 
jointures, attainders, remainders, and reversions, with which five or six genera¬ 
tions of good old Irish gentlemen, rake-helly, and rapacious, had incumbered 
their rights of property, made much money and a great name in equity. When 
the Rebellion of ’98 broke out, he subscribed to the Patriotic Fund; and on 
that famous night, when the rebels were to have taken Dublin, and General 
■Craig packed all the lawyers and attorneys in Smithfield to meet the first 
rush of the Kildare pikes, I’luuket was out in battle array, like the rest of 
Captain Saurin’s Lawyeis’ corps Once he emerged from his pleadings, while 
that other battle, fiercer than any that General Craig commanded was going 
on between the lawyers and the rebels—venue changed from Smithfield to 
Kilmaiuham. He was counsel with Curran for Henry Sheares, and did kb 


MEMOIR, 


IX 


duty well: but when Curran, that same sad winter, made such a gallant effort 
to ?-ave Tone from the hangman, it is gratefully told by the patriot’s son, “ that/ 
l’eter Burrowes* ably exerted himself”—and there is no mention made ofl 
Plunkor. 

He had entered parliament in the spring of that awful year for the borough of 
Charlemont. At the time there was no more honoured constituency in all Ireland, 
than the tidy village which rests under Mountjoy’s old fort, beside the Northern 
Blnckwater. The good old lord, who took his title thence, throughout his life 
had exercised his conge d'elire as a trust for the people, and was always proud 
to award its honours -where he saw, or fancied he saw, genius, patriotism, 
and youth struggling into public life, under the discouraging auspices of a sys¬ 
tem in which counties were family appanages, and boroughs cost i J 4000 a seat 
Grattan had entered Parliament as member for Charlemont, and represented it 
when he carried the revolution of ’82. Among the names which we find on its 
list of burgesses, is that of Sheridan, a cousin of Richard Brinsley, to whom the 
earl, struck on a short acquaintance, by the brilliant wit and high ideality which 
belong to that old Celtic blood, forthwith offered a seat in Parliament. He died 
young; and then Lawyer Jephson, full of parliamentary promise, is spoken of with 
a proper pater patrice pride ; but ungrateful Lawyer Jephson took a judgeship at 
Gibraltar. Lord Caulfield and he had occupied the two seats from the general elec¬ 
tion of 1797, until parliament met in the following February. Then the viscount, 
elected to sit for the county of Armagh, by which he had also been returned; 
Jephson took office; the Speaker’s writ was moved, and the answer that 
came to it was—that Francis Dobbs, Esquire, Barrister-at-Law, and William 
Conyngham Plunket, Esquire, one of his Majesty’s counsel, had been duly 
elected by the Portreeve and burgesses of the Borough of Charlemont to serve 
in the Commons house of Parliament.! 

When Plunket entered parliament, the patriot party had dwindled to a mise¬ 
rable minority of seven or eight steady votes, and about twice as many fluctu¬ 
ating tallies. The great assembly, which as Grattan told the English Commons, 
had “ in fourteen years acquired for Ireland what you did not acquire for Eng¬ 
land in a century—freedom of trade, independency of the judges, restoration of 
the final judicature, repeal of a perpetual mutiny bill, habeas corpus act, nullum 
tenfpus act,” had, since the secession of the opposition, sunk into a mere divan 
of the minister. With whatever ambitious anxiety the honourable member for 
Charlemont may have looked forward to his entrance upon that high arena, he 
must have felt the position a forlorn hope as he looked round the splendid cham¬ 
ber, from whose gallery he had often longingly gazed upon the assembled 
magnates of Ireland. The seats of the opposition were almost vacant. Grattan, 
under his beloved oaks of Tinnehinch, chafed like some war-worn soldier, bound 
by parole, while the trumpet of his cause called all good men and true to the 
rescue. Curran stood day after day in the bloody assize of the rebellion, plead¬ 
ing in such tones of courage, pity, and wrath, as never were addressed to any tri¬ 
bunal on the earth before for mercy to the young, the gilted, and the true—as 
well ask mercy from the famished tiger. The familiar faces that used to cluster 
round Grattan were gone—some dead and gone, and their ancient places knew 
them no more. Tone’s old friend, Sir Laurence Parsons, still kept his seat, and 

* Burrowes prepared Tone’s defence before the court-martial. I owe this mf.er63ii:ig 
fact, never before published, to my friend. Waldron Burrowes. 

t Hardy’s “ Charlemont.” Journals of the House of Commons. 


X 


MEMOIR, 


occasionally harrassed Mr. Pelham. George Ponsonbv frequently attended, and 
his upright character, high connexion, and trained capacity were always an 
honour to his party. Bushe had been for some months in the House, and was 
creating a sensation by his elegant and spirited eloquence. Tighe of Wicklow, 
Stewart of Killymoon, O’Donnell of Donegal, and a few more of the country 
gentry remained faithful. But parliament was hardly attended during the ses¬ 
sion of ’98, by the squires. They were busy in their counties; some were dra¬ 
gooning the rebels, others had grown indifferent to the character of parliament 
since Grattan’s retirement. A herd of colonels, commissaries, revenue commis¬ 
sioners, members of ballast boards, and barrack boards, castle clerks, and black 
leg barristers, composed the ministerial majority—suppressed the constitution 
whenever they were bid, and boasted they had been sent into parliament to 
put an end to it. The task of the little opposition during this dreary period con¬ 
sisted in an ineffectual effort to thwart and mitigate Pitt’s Thorough —the policy 
bayonet in one hand and bribe in the other, by which he was preparing for the 
Union. After a few months more the Union itself roused all Ireland like the 
aound of the last trumpet. 

On the 16th of November, 1798, Mr. Pitt writes to Lord Cornwallis enclosing 
a rough draft of the articles of Union, and appointing Viscount Castlereagh 
Chief Secretary for Ireland.* On the same day, the late Lord Lieutenant, Earl 
Camden, congratulates the young minister, his nephew; and begs he will write 
letters frequently, as Mr. Pitt has confidentially complained that the Lord Lieu¬ 
tenant is rather remiss in correspondence—write long letters often, and make 
his excellency sign them. Neither Mr. Pitt nor Earl Camden seems to have per¬ 
fectly discerned the amazing elements of power which lay latent in this extraor¬ 
dinary young man. Who indeed could have believed that under that bland ado¬ 
lescent air, that lithe and dazzling front, and, stranger still, that tongue so awk¬ 
ward and maladroit, were hidden a heart as subtle, a will as truculent, a 
courage as cold, and a conscience as unscrupulous as Caesar Borgia’s. For a 
model of Castlereagh’s character, we naturally refer not to the generous ambi¬ 
tions, and the gallant rivalries of the British parliament; but to the crafty, im¬ 
passable, and implacable ideal of Machiavelli’3 Prince, or the inexorable voli¬ 
tion, passionless wisdom, and atrocious cold blood of the Third Napoleon. He 
was then not quite thirty years of age, and wore them with such a blooming, pa¬ 
trician beauty, that it was the custom of the opposition to speak of the secretary 
as a smooth-faced minion of Mr. Pitt. He had that order of mind, difficult and 
ungraceful of display in the liberal air of public assemblies which “ men of intel¬ 
lect,”^?* excellence , are always so vain to contemn. To the last days of his 
life, Castlereagh’s mixed metaphors and rigmarole reasoning were the sport of the 
wits of opposition. But sneer, stricture, and invective, alike glanced aside from 
his imperturbable, polite placidity, and his callous pluck. Few men have ever 
possessed such extraordinary executive faculties, such reticence, tact, and du¬ 
plicity, such-skill in deceiving, and such address in managing men, and so 
intense and even an energy in the conduct of great affairs. 

In a few months he earned a name the most hateful in Ireland since Crom¬ 
well’s. During the last months of the rebellion, acting as secretary, ad interim , 
he had served a rapid noviciate in the corrupt system of the castle at one of its 
worst periods. Bloody Carhampton, domineering Clare, and Toler, a fero¬ 
cious vampire, composed the real executive of the country at the time. At such 


* The Castlereagh Correspondence. 


MEMOIR. 


XI 


a council board lie learned to “ dabble his sleek young hands in Erin’s gore”_ 

and learned the lesson with all the rancorous zeal of a renegade ; for a very few 
years before his lordship had been a very ultra-democratic Northern Whig. 
Already an audacious and unscrupulous ambition possessed him. It was said 
that he even ventured to emulate the fame, and imitate the methods of Mr. 
Pitt. But perhaps the brilliant success, which another young Irish noble, Lord 
Mornington, had rapidly won in the wider field of imperial politics, obtained a 
more natural incentive for him. Fifteen years afterwards, he and the two bro¬ 
thers Wellesley concluded that awful contest, in which Pitt himself had suc¬ 
cumbed. Its secret history is that of an alliance between these three Irish ad¬ 
venturers. It was Castlereagh who appointed and maintained the Duke of Wel¬ 
lington as British generalissimo—Wellesley who suggested and Castlereagh 
who conducted the diplomatic arrangements which banded all Europe against 
Napoleon at the congress of Vienna. 

Yet had the young Secretary been of a less aspiring and active temper, there 
sat in his office an old familiar of the Castle, whose mind took a perfectly Satanic 
pleasure in the arts of intrigue and the darker passions of power, and whose in¬ 
fluence he could hardly have escaped. It is likely that Edward Cooke had quite 
as much to do with the formation of Lord Castlereagh’s character as either nature 
or accident. In the correspondence of that strange being, we observe an intel¬ 
lect of keen, cold, wily energy; a heart without passion, prejudice, or scruple; 
a temperament of preternatural activity, but which loved to sit still in the shade 
and move men about like puppets. To prompt an informer; to instruct a spy; 
to know the precise price of every member in the House; how to manage the 
“Popish titulars;” how to infuriate the Orange Lodges; how to master the 
weak points by which the Lord Lieutenant and the Lord Chancellor, and the Lord 
Chief Justice, and the Attorney-General and the Secretary could all be moved so 
as to be of one purpose (his, Edward Cooke’s purpose)—such were the arts which 
die loved and in which he was versed beyond any man who has filled his office 
’before or since. Into Castlereagh he infused, with the zeal of a master who 
has at last found a fit pupil in the rare art he loves, all the tortuous schemes 
.and all the dark experience of his life. 

A rival is almost as essential to the passion of ambition, as a mistress is to 
that of love. Almost from the very hour he entered the house, Plunket pitted 
himself against the secretary. There was no extremity of insult to which he did 
not proceed, in speeches, to which every man who listened must have felt that 
they were destined to live as long as Irish history and the English language. 
Their honest passion and fertile eloquence, hardly redeem passages of that sur¬ 
passing invective from the character of unjustifiable vituperation. But the 
Secretary sat silent—perhaps stunned before it all. There is no doubt whatever 
that Castlereagh was a man of courage.— 

“ Fearless, because no feeling dwells In ice, 

His very, courage stagnates to a vice." 

But he neither ventured to reply to those savage onslaughts, nor to seek the 
coarser and in those days common satisfaction of the duel. It is perhaps the most 
extraordinary proof we possess of the Secretary’s elaborately stern and thick-skin¬ 
ned nature that then or afterwards he never resented all th ; s deadly animosity. 
When Plunket entered the English House of Commons, Castlereagh was one of 
the first to hail his success in terms of unstinted admiration. On the questions 
of the war and the Peterloo Massacre, he led the Irish lawyer, yet independent 


XU 


MKMUR. 


of government, and an important parliamentary personage away from hia party. 
And afterwards when Plunket took office, he speaks of C astlereagh’s influence 
upon him in such terms as these :—“ His friendship and confidence were the 
prime causes which induced his majesty’s government to desire my services ; and 
I can truly add that my unreserved reliance on the cordiality of his feelings to¬ 
wards me, joined to my perfect knowledge of the wisdom and liberality of all his 
public objects and opinions, were the principal causes which induced me to ac¬ 
cept the honour which was proposed to me. Nothing can ever occur to me in 
political life so calamitous as the event, which, in common with all his country 
and Europe, I so deeply deplore.” This was written to the Marquis of London¬ 
derry a few days after the minister’s suicide. 

Plunket appears to have entered upon the contest of the Union at first with 
despondency. Cooke writes of the Bar Meeting, that “ Plunket was cunning, 
and changed his ground from the violence he had used in a former debate to a 
tone of moderation, and by that device had good effect.” A very good effect in 
Mr. Cooke’s mind—for he frankly declared his decided belief that the Union 
would be carried! “ Fear, animosity, a want of time to consider coolly the con¬ 

sequences, and 40,000 British bayonets will carry it.” He might have added 
the chronic apathy which had affected the national parliamentarists ever since 
Grattan had withdrawn from public life; he might have added, but his audience 
would have laughed the assertion to scorn that grand cause, which Grattan after¬ 
wards admitted in the most memorable words he ever spoke to the British Par¬ 
liament—“ When the Irish Parliament rejected the Catholic Petition, on that 
day she voted the Union; many good and pious reasons she gave, and she lies 
there with her many good and her pious reasons.” As the session of 1799 ad¬ 
vanced, the lobbies and galleries of the houses and the closets of the castle became as 
busy as the Stock Exchange, with peerages and boroughs to be bought and sold, ap¬ 
plications for the escheatorships, tenders for the manufacture of situations and sine¬ 
cures, and applications now seldom neglected for places of every species by per¬ 
sons of all possible denominations. When Mr. Cooke has a little leisure, we find 
him writing to Doctor Troy to ascertain if any more of his brother Titulars have 
given in their adhesion; and by return the comharba of Saint Laurence writes 
back to the castle, to say that all is right in Armagh, that he is almost sure of 
Tuam, and that his own priests have got the hint. At last the old fire began to 
kindle into a flame. When the measure of the Union was really revealed, 
first consternation, then wrath spread from man to man, and shore to shore. 
Two classes were foremost to combine and resist—the independent country gen¬ 
tlemen ; old volunteer colonels, toparchs of their counties, and owners of boroughs, 
who anticipated not merely the national dishonour, but the injury of their influ¬ 
ence and property. It afterwards cost at least two millions of money, not to 
speak of titles and places, to buy their acquiescence. The second class was the 
Bar, then the most powerful, influential, and intellectual order in Irish society, 
and having even stronger obvious motives of interest, honour, and ambition, 
than the gentry in the maintenance of a national legislature. The most conside¬ 
rable men of the first class in parliament were the Speaker Foster, Sir Laurence 
Parsons, Sir Henry Parnell, Sir Edward O’Brien, Tighe of Wicklow, and Ste¬ 
wart of Killymoon. To the second class, the Prime Sergeant Fitzgerald, George 
Ponsonby, Saurin, Bushe, Goold, Barrington, and Plunket belonged. 

But in that brief parliament no man, squire, lawyer, or minister made such a 
figure as Plunket. The debates were generally led by Parsons or Ponsonby; 
he was always content to follow, but he invariably spoke the speech of the night, 


St' MOU?. 


xiii 


a:xl Grattan significantly recognized the place he had attained, by taking hin 
seat next to him when he re-entered parliament. Ilis later efforts never ex¬ 
celled these grand orations. The sceva indignatio —the pestering sarcasm that 
atung like a swarm of hornets, the clear, icy irony that flayed its adversary 
like a razor, and the fiery factfull invective that riddled a reputation like grape- 
fiiot—the classic structure, the stately, luminous, and ample language of these 
magnificent speeches are unsurpassed in oratory—but these were only tlieorna 
ments or variations of argument that has all the accuracy of mathematical proof-, ' 
in which every word is a link of one perfect chain; in which all the ingenuity 
of logic cannot suggest one superfluous sentence. And there is great moral gran- 1 
deur in the attitude which he sustains throughout—that of a jurist pleading 
before the High Court of Parliament, for the constitution of which it is the de¬ 
pository, and which it is bound to guard against the lawless violence of the 
minister as well as of the mob. Even in the utmost length to which he carried 
the doctrine of the incompetency of Parliament to enact the articles of Union, 
we observe that there is not a syllable of sympathy with the attempts lately 
made by the people against the constitution, lie treats the rebel in the same 
category with the minister, and when he justifies a resort to the ultima ratio , 
as he very plainly does, it is on the same constitutional principle as applied 
to an abuse of parliamentary authority, that justified the English Revolution 
>f 1688, in consequence of a malfeasance of the sovereign power. How far he 
urged this doctrine, the following passage, taken from one of the speeches of 
which only a fragmentary report is extant, will tell: 

“ 1 boldly assert, staking whatever professional character I may possess as a 
constitutional lawyer, that if the parliament of Ireland pass this measure against 
the consent of the people of Ireland, their act will want all the attributes of a 
law. This is a plain, simple proposition, which I am ready to maintain, and I 
call on any learned or honourable gentleman in this house to contradict it. It 
is said by gentlemen on the other side, that Parliament is omnipotent. Sir, the 
omnipotence of parliament, if literally understood, is impious blasphemy, and it 
it be understood with limitations, it proves nothing for the gentlemen of the other 
side, for it implies a limit to its omnipotence. Sir, there are acts which but to 
name, proves that no parliament can be authorised to perform them—acts, to 
which no authority can give the force of laws, and which all mankind are justi¬ 
fied in resisting. It is true indeed, that under and within the constitution, there 
can be no power to control the legislature, because the legislature is the higher 
power known to the constitution; but who is the driveller will say, that there 
fore any act of that legislature, however contrary to national justice, or incon¬ 
sistent with the constitution itself, is rightful, and that they have a legal compe¬ 
tency to perform them. If then there are acts which no power in the state is 
competent to, it remains only to ask is this not one of them—I contend that it 
is, because it is an act which goes to alter the constitution.” 

At the close of the same speech, he says in a spirit only too prophetic:— 

“ Who will say, that when the imperial parliament shall have got an uncon¬ 
trolled power over Ireland, that they will not make local laws for the govern¬ 
ment of this country ? Who will answer that when the Habeas Coi'pus shall be 
suspended in Ireland, it shall also be suspended in Great Britain ? Who will 
say, that the miserable inhabitants of this remote and barbarous province shall 
not be smarting under the fetter and the whip, while the British Parliament, in 
its imperial dignity, shall sit unconcerned at our sufferings and out of the reach 
of our cries ?” 


B 


MEMOIR. 


xiv 

He lived to see the full extent of all he had foreseen. The last words, spoken 
against the Union in the Irish Commons, say the reports, were spoken by Plun- 
ket and Goold— words of what anguish and indignation we can faintly conceive. 
With the fall of Ireland’s independence, the grand ambition of his life, and 
of all the great Irishmen of that day, seemed tosuccumb. To Plunket especially, 
the shock must have been terrible. Had the minister been defeated, such a 
career lay before him, as no Irishman had yet attempted. He had acquired in 
a few months, a rank in parliament equally splendid and solid. It is hardly an 
exaggeration to say, that he stood in a position to fulfil Grattan’s labom-s, and 
to anticipate O’Connell’s. To resume the old policy of the opposition, to reform 
the House of Commons, to emancipate the Catholics and the Dissenters, to erect 
a popular ministry in the Castle, and in the fulness of time, make himself its 
Chancellor—such might have seemed a not unreasonable ambition, for the man 
who had so easily attained such an ascendancy in his native legislature. In¬ 
stead of a destiny so brilliant, only the dull and daily-degenerating routine of an 
Irish practising barrister’s life awaited him. One of the first curses of the Union, 
was that it subverted the natural order of legal promotion, and for twenty years 
afterwards filled the Benches of the Four Courts with judges, who had no claim to 
the ermine, but that of having corruptly opposed the leaders of their profession on 
the question of national independence. To an Irish barrister without office or pri¬ 
vate fortune, a seat in the British Commons was the road to ruin, in times when 
all the expenses and troubles of a parliamentary life may be epitomised in the 
fact, that the mail took four days to go from London to Dublin. Even in the 
present age of cheap and easy communication, it is in some cases a rather risky 
speculation for honourable and learned members who have got a country to sell 
—the competition is so undue, and the first self-denying pangs of a lessening fee 
book so sharp. In despair, it is said, Plunket meditated for a time emigration 
to England or the United States. Finally, he settled down to make the leading 
and most lucrative practice at the Irish Bar—to make money—to watch oppor¬ 
tunities of making power. Already it was said that he was far fonder of money 
awl of power than of mere fame. 

The next time he appeared in public life, it was to cloud in an unaccountable 
hour his character as an Irish patriot and as an advocate, with that merciless 
speech for the Crown, in the case of Robert Emmet. No palliation can mitigate 
the simple censure, that his speech to evidence upon that occasion was a cruel 
and uncalled for assault upon a young heroic martyr, who had already surren¬ 
dered himself frankly to his doom. But the publicists of the day, who sympa¬ 
thised with Emmet, or who, like Cobbett, hated Plunket’s party or person, did 
imt rest there. They declared that Emmet had attacked Plunket from t he dock 
—which was a lie; that Plunket had been under the deepest obligations to 
bmmet’s father and brother—which was also a lie ; and that Emmet declared 
he had imbibed the opinions upon which he had acted from Plunket’s teaching— 
opinions, now abandoned by Plunket for corrupt motives. This also is an asser¬ 
tion equally without foundation ; but which has never yet been properly met by 
the apologists of Plunket’s conduct. There is to it one simple and sufficient an¬ 
swer. Ten years before, towards Tone, Plunket had evinced precisely the same 
sentiments. Violent and unfeeling as he was in their utterance, it is impossible 
t» deny that they were in perfect consistency with the settled opinious which he 
had for many years held and expressed. In everyone of his Union speeches, he 
speaks of the attempt of the United Irishmen and the attempt of the minister 
with equal abhorrence. There can hardly be a doubt that he regarded Emmet’s 


MEMOIR. 


XV 


experiment, as one more dangerous in every sense than even that of ’98—more 
ikely, but for the merest chance, to have succeeded, and certain to have led to 
an atrocious anarchy, or a French deputy-despotism, if it had. It was now not 
merely horror of democracy—horror of Bonaparte too had seized upon men’s minds. 
And those who doubt the extent to which both feelings may have fairly influ¬ 
enced Plunket in warning the country against such designs, will find that Cur- 
) an, speaking not for the Crown, but for the defence of one of Emmet’s partisans, 

< )\ven Kirwan, a few months afterwards, med language of the same spirit, and if 
possible, more vehement. Perhaps, too, the very sense that the rebellion had 
considerably contributed to aid the minister in carrying the Union,* added its 
rankling bitterness to the animosity which he exhibited against all who had 
hand, act, or part in this last attempt of the United Irishmen. 

It is certain, however, that Plunket’s speech against Emmet had the effect of 
establishing good relations between him and the government, and led directly to 
bis acceptance of office under Mr. Addington’s ministry. He became Solicitor- 
General in October, 1803, on the promotion of Standish O’Grady to the Court 
of Exchequer; Attorney-General under Mr. Pitt, in 1805 ; and retained office 
with Bushe as his colleague under the Cabinet of “ all the talents,” worthily sus¬ 
taining their intellectual reputation in Ireland. They gave him an English seat, 
and tempted him, not reluctant, to a British ambition. Ilis brief career in Par¬ 
liament at this time, bred in him an extraordinary attachment to that high and 
select party, of which Earl Grenville was the head. He followed the Stowe sect 
ever afterwards. Nor is it difficult to conceive, what an effect the influence of 
that family of statesmen, by birth and profession, aristocrats in the noblest sense 
of the word, and engaged to the public service with a zealous, unselfish, and in¬ 
dustrious devotion—must have had upon a man, fresh from the Union’s experi¬ 
ence of borough-inongering rotteness in the lower House, and miserable self- 
• emasculation in the upper. In their resolute sincerity for the Catholics, and 
against the French, he founded the basis of his future political career. He left 
office honestly with them, in 1807, gave up his seat, and came home to make a 
fortune sufficient to enable him to live^ independently in Parliament; showing, 
as Grattan said, “ a contempt for salary equal to his regard for law.’’ There is 
no doubt that at the time he could have continued to hold his office, as Bushe 
did, and secured to himself the fifteen years of absolute power and unlimited 
lucre upon which his rival, Saurin, then entered. 

This is a view of him, at the height of his fame as a lawyer, in the period 
which followed, from the vivid pen of William Henry Curran: — 

“ Of all the eminent lawyers I have heard, he seemed to me to be the most admi¬ 
rably qualified for the department of his profession in which he shines. His mind 
is at once snbtle and comprehensive; his language clear, copious, and condensed; 
his powers of reasoning are altogether wonderful. Give him the most compli¬ 
cated and doubtful case to support—with an array of apparently hostile decisior/ 
to oppose him at every step—the previous discussion of the question has probably 
satisfied you, that the arguments of his antagonists are neither to be answered or 

evaded_they have fenced round the rights of their clients with all the great 

names in equity—Hardwicke, Camden, Thurlow, Eldon :—Mr. Plunket rises: 

* “ If Mr. Pitt is firm, he will meet with no difficulty; the misfortunes of the present 
time are much in favour towards carrying the present point on the same grounds that 
the rebellion assisted in carrying the Union. Timid men will not venture on any change 
of system however wise and just, unless their fears are alarmed by pressing dangers ’ 
—Lord Cornwallis to Lord Castlereagh— Casti ebe/gh Corrksfokckmce, voL iv., p. 20. 


XVI 


MEMOIR. 


you are deeply attentive, rather from curiosity to witness a display of hopdese 
dexterity, than from any uncertainty about the event. He commences by sou*** 
general, undisputed .principle of law, that seems, perhaps, - at the first view not 
to bear the remotest relation to the matter in controversy; but to this he appends 
another and another, until, by a regular series of connected propositions, be 
brings it down to the very point before the Court, and insists, nay, demonstrate-*, 
that the Court cannot decide against him without violating one of its own most 
venerated maxims. 

“In this respect, I look upon Mr. Plunket, going through a long and importau' 
argument in the Court cf Chancery, to be a most extraordinary exhibition m 
human intellect. For hours he will go on and on, with unwearied rapidity, ar¬ 
guing, defining, illustrating, separating intricate facts, laying down subtle dis¬ 
tinctions, prostrating an objection here, pouncing upon a fallacy there, then re¬ 
tracing his steps and re-stating in some original point of view his general propo¬ 
sition ; then flying off again to the outskirts of the question, and dealing his 
desultory blows with merciless reiteration, wherever an inch of ground remaiur 
to be cleared ; and during the whole of this, not only does not his vigour flag for 
a single instant, but his mind does not even pause, for a topic, an idea, or an ex¬ 
pression.” 

In 1812, Plunket re-entered parliament, as member for Trinity College; at* 
honour for which he was almost absolutely indebted to the energetic friendship 
of Magee, then Senior Fellow, and the most potential partizan in the Univer¬ 
sity. He had waited long, and his patience had its reward. His position was 
one of perfeot independence, and of high prestige. His professional savings baa 
already laid the foundation of an affluent fortune. By his brother, Dr. Patrick 
Pluuket’s death, he inherited the ample sum of ^60,000. Thus the essential 
basis was secure, and he could afford to abandon himself to his ambition—for the 
man was in one sense like Virgil’s giant, whose head was in the skies, but whose 
feet touched the earth ; and made very sure indeed that they touched it ere he 
moved. He goes, said Curran, finely from the Newry hustings, “ like Gylippus, 
whom the Spartans sent alone as a reinforcement to their distressed ally— 
Gylippus, in whom was concentrated all the energies and all the talents of hie 
country.” He was already favourably known to the House of Commons. His 
single speech in the session of 1807 must have created a considerable sensation, 
when we find Whitbread next year speaking of it, as “ one that would neve* 
be forgotten.” Thus, in easy circumstances, member for his university, with 
the fame of his former political career, of his present professional pre-eminencw, 
and of his austere and dignified ambition, preceding him, he took his seat unde, 
enviable auspices. 

The time too was propitious of opportunity. He came in the Interval of two 
great parliamentar} r eras—while the cotemporaries of Pitt and Fox were gradu¬ 
ally retreating from public life, and before Peel, Canning, or Brougham had yet 
risen to the full perfection of their powers. The Irish character never stood in 
higher repute. For fifty years before, almost the greatest names which illumi¬ 
nated the history of the Commons had been Irish. There were dozens of old 
members, anxious to hear the new orator, who had listened to the inspired, majes. 
tic, and opulent wisdom of Burke, to the popular vigour of Barre, to the splendid 
passion of Sheridan, to the savage satire of Francis. Grattan’s lustrous energy, 
Ponsonby’s manly sense, Tierney’s trenchant irony, Canning’s classic tropes and 
elegant sarcasm, were, at the time, the greatest intellectual attractions <«f the 
House. Plunket spoke to them in a new *rud unexpected strain, in what h* 


MEMOIR. 


XV] l 


a mos,t elaborate logic, a rare depth of meditation, and an austere gravity 
ot tone, half statesmanlike, half judicial, were splendidly combined with a singu¬ 
lar purity and precision ot language, and an extraordinary, vehement, and un¬ 
flagging intensity of expression. It was more like the language of some great 
noble of the robe, speaking with the sense that the estates of the realm really 
hung upon his words, than the common partisan declamation of the House of 
Commons, which has no horizon but the opposite benches and the reporter’s gal¬ 
lery. The greatest authorities in and out of the House, declared that he reached 
the very highest style of parliamentary oratory—a style in comparison with 
which Canning’s was flashy, and Brougham’s coarse, and Peel’s thin. Old 
Charles Butler had sat in the gallery of the House from far-back penal days, 
when there was not a flicker of hope for the Catholics. He had heard Chatham, 
hiorth, Pitt, Fox, Burke, speak their greatest speeches, with a fastidiously criti¬ 
cal ear; and he declared that Plunket’s speech of 1821 had never been sur¬ 
passed in the British Senate. Of his very first appearance, it was unanimously 
admitted that no such speech had been heard in the House of Commons since She¬ 
ridan’s Begum oration. Lord Dudley’s was an opinion upon political talents and 
effects equal to Horace Walpole’s upon vertu and belles letlres —he repeatedly de¬ 
clared that for its gravity and sagacity, its energy and intensity, its exactitude, 
its sober and stately grace, he preferred Plunket’s to all other styles that he had 
known or read of. “ 1 wish you had heard him,” he wrote of the Peterloo Speech, 
“ in answer to Mackintosh. He assailed the fabric of his adversary, not by 
an irregular damaging fire that left parts of it standing, but by a complete rapid 
process of demolition that did not let one stone continue standing upon an¬ 
other.*’ That single speech admittedly saved the Cabinet. It w T as Mackintosh’s 
own admission, that if Plunket had been regularly bred to Parliament, he would 
have made the first public figure of the period. All the great Commoners of his 
era admitted his supremacy as freely as had his old mates of the Historical 
Society. Last, and most marvellous tribute of all, hardly credible of the House 
of Commons! He is said, on several of the Catholic Claims’ Debates, to have 
converted various votes to his side, (so many as six, it is alleged, upon one oc¬ 
casion,) by very dint of conscientious conviction. 

At fifty years of age, he was in the full maturity of his powers. The long in¬ 
terruption of his public career, had not in any way dulled or frustrated the tine 
political faculties he had displayed in the Irish House. The rolling vehemence 
and impatient fire of his earlier invective had subsided indeed, but so had the 
passions which prompted them. His satire had become as serious and mordant 
as Swift’s—his reasoning as strict, lucid, and close as Locke’s or Suarez’. There 
was something inspired and august in his tone when he addressed the House; 
ihey were flattered to feel that he raised them to the level of his own genius. 
His person and physiognomy fully sustained his character. He was of more than 
the middle height, built of big bones and massive muscles, with a deep full chest, 
from which issued a voice of powerful metallic tones, slightly marked by the 
extra-emphatic accent of Ulster. His head has been perpetuated by the masterly 
chisel of Christopher Moore. It is the same head that our ethnologists assign to 
the old Irish of Armagh. The brow rises like a dome over features of coarse and 
crooked outline. The sides of the head are like walls—there is a lofty and well- 
arched span from ear to ear—a heavy arrear of animal energy behind. The 
jaws were immense. The lips, long and convex, looked as if language would over¬ 
flow from them. The eyes shone with calm, stern lustre, under a forehead craggy 
with manifold organs, lined with innumerable, long, parallel wrinkles, and from 


xvm 


MEMOIR. 


which a perpetual pallor overspread the whole visage. While he pleaded before 
the Bench, there was a natural authority about him, that embarrassed the Chan¬ 
cellor on his wool-sack. He lorded it over Mr. Speaker, too, and chained the 
Commons when he rose. His manner had the same austere energy and studious 
simplicity as his language. It was perfectly natural and unaffected ; the 
ouly peculiarity of his delivery on record is, that as he reached each climax of 
his statement, point after point, he would raise his two hands gradually above 
his head, and then suddenly swing them down, as though he would drive the 
argument home with a sledge-hammer. It was a singular gesture, and almost 
seem si to say quod erat demonstrandum. 

Plunket’s course in British politics illustrated the principles of Btrke, and was 
identified with the party of Earl Grenville. He was an Anti-Jacobin Whig. 
In 1813, we find him in savage attack upon the Liverpool Cabinet for compromis¬ 
ing the Catholic Question; but in 1815, he sustains the same cabinet against Earl 
Grey and the Gallican Whigs, upon the question of renewing the war. The 
following year, we find him again in violent opposition to the financial measures 
of the ministry. But when the discontents which ensued upon those very mea¬ 
sures assumed a revolutionary character, he gave to Lord Castlereagh all the 
immense aid of his ability, his independent position, and his forensic fame. His 
speech upon the Peterloo massacre had the same result, in opening direct rela¬ 
tions between him and the government, that had followed his speech in Emmet’s 
case. “ ‘ He saved the cabinet by that one speech,’ said one of the ablest and 
most critical of the Whigs.”' 1 * The Cabinet were more than willing to acknow¬ 
ledge the obligation—but Plunket was slow to admit an interested adhesion. He 
would not even accommodate them with a full report of his Peterloo speech. 
Nevertheless, he was heartily abused as a corrupt deserter by Earl Grey in the 
House of Lords, and by the advanced Reformers in and out of Parliament. There 
was now, indeed,'an open breach in the ranks of the opposition. The structure of 
the Cabinet had also considerably changed. It contained at once the most unre¬ 
lenting enemies and the most eminent advocates of Emancipation in the house. 
Indeed there never was a cabinet in England, not even Chatham’s, which 
so completely deserved the epithet of a Patch-work Cabinet as that which is 
called Lord Liverpool’s, from the year 1812 to the year 1827, but which in reality 
consisted of the same integral elements, for five years before, and for three 
years after that statesman’s premiership. It had originally been formed on a 
pledge to the king, never to propose any redress to the Catholic Claims—and 
consisted on the one hand of ministers like Perceval and Eldon, who were his 
majesty’s particular advisers in this question, and on the other hand, of Pitt’s 
peculiar disciples, the young Tory tribunes, Canning and Castlereagh, who ac¬ 
cepted his design of emancipating the Irish Catholics as a doctrine of imperial 
policy. One could not by possibility traverse a wider difference of view upon 
this subject, than existed between the minister who kept the king’s conscience, 
and the minister who stood next to the people, between the liberal zeal of 
Plunket, and the incurable bigotry of Eldon. By its later Irish appointments, 
thi3 government had adopted a system, which amounted to a precursorship of 
emancipation. But whenever the question came into the House of Commons, 
the opposition could afford to look on, and halloo one set o f his majesty’s minis¬ 
ters against the other. Imagine such a debate as this! The Irish Attorney- 
General rises to present the petition of the Catholic Association, and to de- 

• Mr. Ovrea-Madyn's “ Ireland and Its Rulers." 


MEMlIR. 


XIX 

dare that the laws affecting Catholics are an unconstitutional, impolitic, and use¬ 
less injustice. The Secretary for the Home Department denounces the Catho¬ 
lic Association as the greatest peril of the public peace, and the Catholic Claims 
as incompatible with the system and institutions of the empire. The Secretary 
for Foreign Affairs has comedown to the house on crutches, to declare his solemn 
belief, that England will forfeit her position in Europe, if she persists in refus¬ 
ing to do justice to her Irih subjects. The Irish Chief Secretary assures honour¬ 
able gentlemen, that the Irish people are a rabid and rebellious horde, who 
will only swamp the State if admitted. Finally, the minister who carried the 
Union, and who has the most profound experience of the policy of the Castle, 
takes a last opportunity of assuring the house, before his elevation to the peer¬ 
age, that this measure must sooner or later be passed, and the sooner the 
better. What is his Majesty’s opposition to do while his Majesty’s ministers 
are at such cross-purposes? The House of Lords with calm contempt listens 
to this exterior uproar; but Eldon, on his woolsack, that had almost become a 
second throne, now and then shudders with a foreboding terror; hearing afar 
off “ the tramp of seven millions of men.” 

There i3 no more signal retribution in all history, than that which has followed 
the cruel and impious inj ustice of the Irish Penal Laws. Despised and persecuted, 
the miserable Celtic Papist pursued the British minister like the monster of 
Frankenstein, breathing perpetual vengeance, and harassing his policy at every 
point. A tithe of the armies that met his generals in Flanders or Spain was re¬ 
cruited at the mass houses of Connaught and Munster. It was the arm of the Irish 
Catholic in the enemy Vuuiform, which covered the retreat of Ramillies and de¬ 
cided the victory of Fontenoy. The most dangerous antagonist of the English 
conquest in India was one of the expatriated, Lally Tollendal. It was a Munster 
Papist who led the Russian arms to the spot where Sebastopol lately stood. In 
ail the armies and courts of Europe, thi3 outlawed and excommunicated 
Pariah disgraced the policy of England, by his heroic valour, his loyalty in 
service, and his capacity in command. At home, meantime, he kept the Ascen¬ 
dancy which liad been established over him, in constant terror of a war at once 
servile, civil, religious, of property, and of the succession. He was by turns a 
Jacobite and a Jacobin. When the Ascendancy took up arms against England, 
their citizen array rested on the unarmed masses, who hated their Irish 
masters much, but their English enemy far more. When the Ascendancy refused 
the Catholic petition, they revenged the wrong by that passive attitude which al¬ 
lowed the Union to be carried. Then they shared the prostration which befel their 
country ; but although apparently insignificant in the policy of the empire, the 
dead weight of their pressure mysteriously destroyed its equilibrium. In 1801, 
in 1807, long before O’Connell had elevated them into a political power, Pitc 
and Grenville, the two ablest ministers of the two greatest parties in England, had 
to abdicate office, because the conscience of a British statesman could no longer 
tolerate the indefensible injustice of their position. They cowed Wellington— 
they checkmated Peel. The Irish Catholics have wrecked more ministries since 
the Union than all other political questions and parties put together. The ok. 
king, George the Third, had, with a dogged and malignant bigotry devoted ali 
his authority to maintain his hostility to their claims; but in the end the task 
broke his brain. The Duke of York publicly declared that the Catholic Question 
had driven his father mad. The crown at last had to give way before that mon- 
i trous moral force, filled with such spirit and sulidarite. George the Fourth, with 
Idars, told the Irish Protestant Bishops that “they had done their duty’’in assuring 


Xx 


memoir. 


him be was about to break his coronation oath, “but what could he do? 
He could not command a ministry capable of conducting affairs in the position 
to which they had come.” To this conclusion it had come at last; and largely 
owing to Plunket’s endeavours. 

“ Lord Plunket was, in my opinion, the most powerful and able advocate the 
Catholics ever had. 1 will say, that he, more than any other man, contributed 
to the success of the Roman Catholic Question.’’ Such is the striking testimony 
of Sir Robert Peel, expressed when an interval of nearly twenty years had cast 
the sober hue of history between him and that momentous political crisis. 
Such too was the emphatic and authoritative testimony of Canning And 
it is true testimony. We, Irish Catholics, are wont to regard our extraordinary 
agitation with its plenary arrogation of the functions of government, its weekly 
parliament in the Corn Exchange, its exchequer of Catholic rent, its arbitration 
courts of justice, its omnipotent tribune, and bis brilliant staff of orators—his 
skilful application of the administrative mechanism of the church—his masses of 
passive-obedient or stormy-passionate peasantry—all culminating to thegrand co«/> 
which completely clogged the Protestant Constitution at Clare ; we are too much 
accustomed to treat these things as the whole of the history of Catholic liberty. 
But it had a splendid parliamentary history besides—and to parliament Plunket 
impersonated the cause as completely as O’Connell did to the people fie ^ ; d more 
to reconcile the mind of the House to the policy and justice of the Catholic 
Claims than any other, than all the other advocates of them. His clear, calm, 
lofty argument reads strangely beside the passionate appeals, the clamorous com¬ 
plaints, the taunts and threats of the Catholic Association. The grand grounds 
of that argument were: I. That the Catholics were not slaves at all; that they 
were already practically admitted to the substantial privileges of the Constitu¬ 
tion, and only denied its honours in such a way as to offend their loyalty without 
lessening their power. II. That the machinery of exclusion by oath under 
the Test and Corporation Acts was immoral, imperfect, and inconsistent in itself, 
and with all the internal and external polity of England. III. That the true 
safety of the Church Establishment consisted in a generous policy, whereas its 
identification with the existing system of civil disabilities exposed it to the peri¬ 
lous enmity of a whole people. IV. That a system of religious disabilities was 
alien to the spirit of the British Constitution, and had only been provisionallj 
attached to the legislation of the empire, under circumstances which had gra- 
dually expired—sustaining this branch of his argument by a masterly historical 
study of the progress of penal religious legislation from the Reformation to 
the Revolution, and the re-actionary tendency towards a total repeal of the pecu¬ 
liarly Protestant laws afterwards. V. That the safety of Church and St.it* 
against Popery might in the present fige be amply provided for by accompany¬ 
ing the grant of civil privileges to the laity with a system of administrative re¬ 
lations with the clergy; a concordat—the Veto, the Pension, what the Catho¬ 
lics called the Wings. 

The House had been in the habit of considering Catholic Relief merely as n 
measure of expediency, and even of an immoral and unconstitutional expediency. 
Arguments so different from those which it was in the habit of hearing—argu¬ 
ments which rested the case of the Catholics upon an indisputably constitutions 
basis, created, we may well believe, a profound and original sensation. Plunke' 
has obtained the whole glory of this unrivalled political pleading. But Plunke 
perhaps unconsciously had drawn its leading principles and method from tlia 
grand depository of political wisdom, the writings of Edmund Burke. Tb 


MEMOIR. 




Trncts ami Letters of that master of statesmen on the Catholic Disabilities—. 
although loosely and hastily written, and, like his other Irish political studies, 
nlinost forgotten in the fame of his labours for the people of India and America, 
and against the principles of the French Revolution—had long jefore exhausted 
the subject, and left only corollaries and deducibles for those who followed in his 
rear. He “who saw everything and foresaw everything,” had from the first 
moment that his splendid mind surveyed the condition of “that municipal coun¬ 
try in which he was proud to have been born,’’ urged that the civil emancipa¬ 
tion of the Catholics and the freedom of their Church from the influence of thi 
state, were essential principles of imperial policy and Irish government. 

On the latter point, the question of the independence of the Catholic Church, 
Burke stands honourably alone among British statesmen. Upon this point the 
parliamentary question and the popular agitation moved always aloof, and yet 
always approaching to each other. British statesmen and the British Parlia¬ 
ment world gladly have conceded civil privileges to the laity at any time, 
provided they obtained an influence over the Church. Pitt’s plan contemplated 
the reduction of the Irish bishops and clergy to a state of dependence upon the 
crown as complete as that of the Established Church ; and Pitt’s was the pro¬ 
ject of law which his successors always contemplated. Even the liberal Pro¬ 
testant body, even l’lunket and Grattan, were anxious, while they conceded 
full political rights to the laity to encourage them to what they conceived an 
independent use of them by weakening the influence of the clergy. It would 
seem to have been by a special Providence that legislation upon the question 
was so long delayed ; for had it taken place at any earlier date or under any 
other ministry, the old national Church of Ireland should inevitably have been 
the subject of a department in the Castle Pitt had perfected all his arrange¬ 
ments with the principal bishops and the leading aristocrats of the Catholic 
body. A strong body of the laitv, a strong body of the bishops for many years 
afterwards eagerly supported the Vito. Immortal honour to Daniel O’Connell 
and to the faithful Catholic instinct of the people, who sustained him in repudiat¬ 
ing any concession that would have brought the taint of a state connection 
upon the free Church of St. Patrick and St. Laurence! For years of patient 
hope deferred, of glorious indefatigable effort, they laboured not in vain ; they 
had at last so widened the breach and weakened the enemy, that the final effort 
carried the question by storm, and ministers had to surrender Wings and 
all. The history of these persistent parliamentary approaches is the history of 
l’lunket’s career in the British House of Commons, lie moved with the progress 
and grew with the growth of the Catholic question. It made his fame as the 
first parliamentary orator of his period. He went into office, with it and Lord 
Wellesley. He went on the English Bench as Sir William Plunket, Master of 
the Rolls, when Canning’s premiership denoted another advance in the ministe¬ 
rial dispositions to concession. Finally, he went to the House of Lords with the 
certainty that it was safe in the Commons, and sat by the Duke of Wellington’s 
side, watching every turn of the debate, and not less impressive in that cold and 
stately atmosphere, than he had been among the knights and bftrgesses of the 
three kingdoms. 

And with the enactment of Catholic Emancipation, Plunket’s political 
career maybe said to terminate. His arguments in the Upper House are as 
powerful, as profound, as well adapted to his audience, as those which for year( 
he had addressed to the Commons. But after he came home with that great 
measure of peace and good-will, he seldom reappeared in the political arena 


MEMOIR. 


xxii 

He did, indeed, once or twice put forth the old lustre and vigour of his mind in 
that matchless debate in which, with him, the great law lords, Lyndhurst, and 
Eldon, and Brougham, closed in the lists of Reform. But his speaking, which was 
frequent for several years after 1829, was generally upon Irish business, and 
was only a superior order of common-place. 

His career in office was distinguished by a high-minded fearlessness and im¬ 
partiality. He gave the example of a crown prosecutor, who, in the most violent 
times, was never known to pack a jury. If he strained the authority of his 
office in the Bottle Riot prosecution, we are bound to remember the position in 
which the first officer of the law was then placed in Ireland. He stood between two 
factions, which equally domineered over the law in their respective spheres; and he 
had determined to try issue with both. He had to deal with Orange judges, sheriffs, 
juries, and officials upon the one hand—he had to assail a cause indentified with 
his own personal predilections and antecedents upon the other. He failed in both. 
What could he hope to do against the Orange Ascendancy, pleading in a hostile 
court, before a packed jury, with Mr. Solicitor-General, a well-known partizan of 
the prisoners at the Bar—and scandalously deserted by ministers when the case 
afterwards came before the Commons! If ever a man was justified in pushing 
authority to the extreme, it was in such a position. We may be sure that he 
secretly rejoiced when the counter-prosecutions which he undertook against Sheil 
and O’Connell also failed: and may well fancy his feelings realised in Sheil’s 
passionate appeal;— 

“ When Mr. Plunket read the words attributed to Mr. O’Connell, did he ask 
himself—What is the provocation given to this man? Who is he, and what 
arn I ? Who is His Majesty’s Attorney-General, the Right Honourable William 
Conyngham Plunket? I know not whether he administered that personal in¬ 
terrogatory to himself; but if he did, this should have been the answer. ‘I 
raised myself from a comparatively humble station by the force of my own 
talents to the first eminence in the state. In my profession I am without an 
equal. In parliament I had once no superior. When out of office, I kindled 
the popular, passion—I was fierce, violent, vituperative; at last 1 have won the 
object of my life; I am Attorney-General for Ireland; I possess great wealth, 
great power, great dignity, and great patronage. If I had been a Roman 
Catholic instead of an enfranchised Presbyterian, what should I have been ?’ 
I can tell him. He would have ‘ carried up and down a discontented and re¬ 
pining spirit;’ he would have felt like a man with large limbs who could not 
stand erect; his vast faculties would have been cribbed and cabined in; and how 
would he haveborne his political humiliation ? Would he have been tame and 
abject, servile and sycophantic ? Look at him, and say, how would that lofty 
forehead have borne the brand of 4 popery ?’ How would that high demeanour 
have worn the stoop of the slave ? No, he would have been the chief demagogue, 
the most angry, tumultuous, and virulent tribune of the people—he would have 
superadded the honest gall of his own nature to the bitterness of political resent¬ 
ment—he would have given utterance to ardent feelings in burning words; and 
in all the force of passion, he would have gnawed the chain from which he could 
not break. And is this the man who prosecutes for words ? If the tables were 
turned; if Mr. O’Connell were Attorney-General, and Mr. Plunket were the 
great leader of the people; if Antony were Brutus, and Brutus Antony, how 
would the public mind have been inflamed ; what exciting matter would havj?> 
been flung amongst the people? What lava would have been poured forth!* 
1 The very stones would rise in mutiny.’ Would to Heaven, that not only Me 


MEMOIR. 


XXill 


Plunket, but every other Protestant that deplores our imprudence in the 
spirit of a fastidious patronage, would adopt the simple test of nature, and make 
our case his own, and he would confess that, if similarly situated, he would givo 
vent to his emotions in phrases as exasperated, and participate in the feelings 
which agitate the disfranchised community to which it would be his misfortune 
to belong.’’* 

lie was not a great judge in the opinion of the Four Courts—rather, be it 
said, he was not so great a judge as his former fame had led men to expect he 
would prove. But after a position at the Bar, in which his character had toweri d 
by its moral and intellectual elevation, over a bench filled by much inferior mm, 
and after the illustrious and powerful station which he had so long occupied in the 
senate, it is easy enough to understand tjiat neither the Common Pleas nor tha 
Court of Chancery was likely to excite his faculties, or administer a fresh im¬ 
pulse to his ambition. As he grew old, it began to be observed that he was of 
an intensely indolent disposition. r lhe three score years and ten allotted to 
man’s life had almost elapsed ere he reached the woolsack—and, spent in such 
arduous and unremitting exertion, might well have wearied and worn away even 
that massive intellect and those athletic energies. In his most vigorous days, 
indeed, it is said that his best work was the fruit of rapid, ready, and intense 
effort rather than the result of patient and plodding industry. Old attorneys say 
that he was seldom known to note a brief, and that he digested his business as 
he drove into town from the beloved shades of Old Connaught. Of the method 
of his public speaking he told Sheil, who told George Henry Moore (so that the 
tradition reaches us through a line of orators accomplished in the art) that ho 
always carefully prepared to the very syllable the best passages and the best 
only of his great speeches, and used these as a kind of rhetorical stepping stones, 
trusting to his native fluency and force for sustaining the style. Sheil said, 
what all who ever heard and all who read Plunket will confirm, that so consum¬ 
mate was the art with which this was done, one could never discern where the 
prepared was welded into the extemporaneous. But certain it is believed to be, 
that many of his great sentences—that for instance in which he did not say that 
History was no better than an old Almanack—had been carefully constructed 
and finished ad unguem long before the occasions came upon which they were 
applied. It is easier to believe this of a style with the corruscating brilliancy of 
Grattan’s than of one with such a stately and sustained rhythm, and out of 
whose own innate and vivid vitality, the grand, simple figures seem to flash. Of 
his wit,f Parliament seldom saw a specimen ; but some of the best anecdotes of 
the Four Courts are those which record its virile ease and attic finish. 

His later life preached two striking political morals. One was reflected from 
the passionate nationality of his early life. He had submitted to the Union ; he 
had devoted his mighty talents to the service of the empire ; he had become a 
West Briton to all intents and purposes. But the curse of Swift was on him 
withal Being an Irishman, he was used while he was useful, and afterwards 
flung aside with indignity. When he was appointed Master of the Rolls in Eng¬ 
land by Canning_the first attempt that had been made to place an Irish Bar¬ 

rister on the English Bench—the Bar of England rose in rebellion at the outrage 
to their nationality, and the minister was obliged to cancel the appointment. So 

* Speech in Catholic Association, 8th January, 1825. 

t I may be excused for mentioning here, the last witticism of Plunket’s of which ther>9 
is record. “ What is the tone of the Nation to day, my lord ?” asked some one in '43. “ Oh, 
Wolfe Tone, of course,” was hi* answer. 


XXIV 


MEMOIR. 


much for the reality of the Union ! But when in his old age, the Whigs wanted 

get the Irish woolsack for Sir John (afterwards Lord) Campbell, Lord Plunket 
was disgracefully hustled into a reluctant resignation. He had thus lived to ap- 
" r ovo in his own person the prophetic spirit of his earlier days. There was another 
moral too in this later life of his—his price. When he did sell himself, it was 
■'Hi the grand scale of his character. After making, as it was believed, £120,000 
at the Bar, he took, one after another, the most honourable and productive offices 
i f his profession, and the British Peerage. He made one son a Bishop, another 
a Chairman of a County, a third Commissioner of Bankrupt*, a fourth Vicar of 
]*ray—and scattered the spolia opima of Church and State among a clan of 
hmsmen to the third and the fourth degree. 

In private life, among the few to whom he opened his heart, he was greatly 
oeloved always. The affection which Peter Burrowes had for him was womanly 
in its fondness, and childish in its simplicity. Between him and Bushe, and 
Magee, and Millar, and the surviving few of his early circle of college friends, to 
the last a loyal and generous friendship subsisted. Of them all, he remained 
alone and the last, and his heart seemed to grow stern and gloomy, and the bright 
light of his intellect to fade, as one by one they fell around him, and he remained 
weathering year after year like an old oak, the last of a forest—and going, as 
the stern cynic, to whom he was much alike in many of his moods, said of 
himself, going atop. 

Decay first crept into his frame through the subtle valves of the intellect. 
For years before his decease, he had sat in the valley of the shadow of death. 
Mournfully the once giant intellect dwindled away, and his last days were like 
those of Swift, Moore, and O’Connell. In one of the wayward moods of these later 
days, he is said to have destroyed all his political papers. He often drove from 
Old Connaught, along the margin of the bay, towards the city that had once been 
the arena of his ambition, and that had proudly hailed every phase of his for¬ 
tunes—and a last trait told of him by one bright-eyed girl, who loved the white- 
hair ec> “ old man eloquent,” is, that he was very gentle with children, and stop¬ 
ped to speak with them always—a child himself again of the second childhood; 
lie whose manhood had been of so stately and masculine a mould. At last, on 
the 5th of January, 1854, came the merciful release of death, startling rather 
than saddening all who heard the news ; for the name of Plunket had long been 
irrevocably blended with the past. He sleeps in the Cemetery of Mount Jerome, 
under a massive altar-base of granite, beside a walk that leads from the old 
lawn of John Keogh, and that was familiar many and many a long year ago to 
the footsteps of Tone in the gay and brilliant days, when Lawyer Pluukct and 
he began the warfare of the worid. 


THE SELECT SPEECHES 


OF 

WILLIAM CONYNGHAM PLUNKET. 


THE PRESS. 

March 3 , 1798 . 

The last of the Irish parliaments assembled on the 9th of January, 1798 
l’lunket took the oaths and his seat on the 6th of February. It is mentioned 
in the Journals , that having been named on an election committee ■within the 
following week, he claimed, and obtained exemption in consequence of his recent 
return. His name appears in the Debates for the first time on the 3rd of March, 
in committee on “ a bill for amending the act of the 23d and 24th of George 
HI., for securing the liberty of the press by preventing the abuses arising from 
the publication of traitorous, seditious, false, and scandalous libels by persons 
unknown. 1 ’ 

The express design of this bill was to suppress the Press newspaper, the or: .an 
of the United Irishmen. The Press had been started in the autumn of 1797, 
with funds supplied by Arthur O’Connor, and with the aid and inspiration ot 
Addis Emmett, MacNevin, Lord Edward Fitzgerald, and, in fact, the r\ hole 
Dublin directory of the United Irishmen. It was written from the first number 
to the last with a daring and eloquence unknown in Irish journalism since the 
days of the Drapier. It probably furni hed a model for Mr. Mitchels Unit el 
Irishman. The leader was ordinarily a philippic at the Lord Lieutenant. The 
moderates, Grattan and his party, were stigmatised or ridiculed. Every article 
was “ in red ink.” The Press would not condescend to report the debates in 
parliament—even the debates in which its own existence was decided—and 
totally ignored that institution, until one morning Major Sirr and his myrmidons 
inarched into the office, carried off their type cases, and smashed their presses. 
The principal writers were Sampson, formerly of the Northern Star , O’Connor, 
Emmett, Deane Swift, and, it was suspected, Dr. Drennan. 

U. the course of February, Mr. O’Donnell, of Donegal, moved for a committee 
to examine into the character of certain articles recoil v published and attacked 




PLUNK ET S' SPEECHES. 


26 


the government for not prosecuting. The articles which lie <ju->tpil ■*<•»«• rather 
strong One of them dared Major Sirr to say in their office at Abbey-street 
what he was reported to have said elsewhere of the writers of the Press, and 
promised him a horsewhipping if he should. Another begged to inform a noble 
peer that if he should desire to apply more .particularly the general censure he 
had lately passed upon the society of United Irishmen, there were gentlemen, 
nay men of his own rank, to be heard of in Abbey-street, who would be pleased 
to treat such reflections as personal. The attorney-general (Toler), in reply, 
stated that there was no lack of inclination to prosecute; but the state of the 
law precluded his proceeding. The statute gave no remedy, unless against the 
registered publisher, and that individual had left the country. 

Arthur O’Connor was at this date the registered publisher. Peter Finnerty 
who first filled that dangerous post, had been set in the pillory—on which occa¬ 
sion Lord Edward Fitzgerald and Arthur O’Connor took their places at his side 
—and sent to gaol the previous Christmas. Samuel Neilson, who succeeded 
him, was also instantly arrested and prosecuted Then O’Connor avowed him¬ 
self proprietor and editor; but went to England a few days afterwards, and on 
his way to France was arrested on the charge of high treason, upon which he 
was afterwards tried at Maidstone. Meantime there was no way of instituting 
a prosecution in Ireland. The registered proprietor was the person properly in¬ 
dictable, and he was out of the realm. 

Mr. O’Donnell’s committee recommended an abominable bill. Besides im¬ 
posing the obligation of large securities upon newspaper proprietors, it enabled 
grand juries to present newspapers containing seditious or libellous matter as 
nuisances; and empowered magistrates, upon such presentation, to seize and 
destroy the printing materials and suppress the publication of such newspapers. 
The opposition to it was quite insignificant, however. Mr. Tighe, of Wicklow, 
riunket, and his colleague, Francis Dobbs, were the only members who took 
part in it. They succeeded in diminishing the stringency of particular provi¬ 
sions, but not in spoiling the main force of the measure. 

On the 3rd of March, the house resolved into committee on the third reading. 
The attorney-general moved a clause making it necessary for the publisher of a 
newspaper to give securities, to be approved by the authorities, himself in £1000 
and two or three others in the like sum. Mr. Tighe spoke against this clause 
with great spirit, on the ground that it would give the minister almost an arbi- 
tiary power of fixing who should or who should not publish a newspaper. ‘‘At 
]*reseut,” he continued, “ the jealousy of government with respect to libels and 
slanderous publications seemed to be entirely at one side; for though publica- 
tions of that kind appeared perhaps in all the public prints, yet none but tbo-ie 
whose politics were of a certain cast were ever noticed by them: he instanced 
the Dublin Journal , in which there frequently appeared the most gross and scan¬ 
dalous libels on the best and brightest characters of both countries—libels in 
which the first <nd most respectable men in the community were falsely, basely, 
f 'dishly, and meanly aspersed, for no other reason but because they did not pour 
fulsome adulation and undeserved praise upon the ministers. This paper was in 
the pay of administration, and for aught he knew administration, if they were 
capable of writing their thoughts, conveyed them through this foul channel to 
the public.” 

Toler replied, declaring that all the government wanted was securities. Let 
the journalist print treason, sedition, or scandal if he pleased, but let him be 
properly responsible, amenable, and liable for it. “ What, he would ask, was 
vbe satisfaction to that society which might be injured by the promulgation of 


THE PRESS. 


27 


seditions, or to the individuals whose good fame should be blasted by the publi¬ 
cation of the most foul and unfounded calumnies, if the printers and publishers 
of such mischievous publications were either men destitute of property or fuga¬ 
cious in their persons?” He would be no party to reducing the amount of se¬ 
curity. 

Plunket followed him:— 

Finding from the tendency of every clause in the bill, that it went, 
not to restrain the licentiousness of the press, but to restrict its liberty, 
he gave his opposition to the whole of it. The bill, he understood, 
had originally been called for by a case which had occurred where the 
printer of a paper was not responsible. So far as any measure went 
to provide for that case, and make the printers of newspapers respon¬ 
sible for what they published, he would support it. But this bill 
went not merely to that point—its great object seemed to be to lay 
such previous restraints on the liberty of publishing as would, in his 
mind, utterly abolish that liberty. 

So far as he had been able to learn in what the liberty of the press 
consisted, he had always believed that it consisted in this—that every 
man should have full liberty to communicate his sentiments to the 
public, without any restriction whatever but that if he published 
anything inconsistent with the peace, good order, or morals of society, 
or anything tending to injure others in their property, persons, or 
character, he should be liable to such punishment as the law should 
inflict for such misconduct. Nor was this merely his private sense 
on the subject; it was corroborated by one of the highest authorities 
who had ever written on the laws and constitutions of these coun¬ 
tries. Speaking of the liberty of the press, that great man said: 
“ The liberty of the press is indeed essential to the nature of a free 
state; but this liberty consists in laying no previous restraints upon 
publications.” u Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay 
what sentiments he pleases before the public, and to forbid this is 
to destroy the freedom of the press.” “ And to this we may add, 
that the only plausible argument heretofore used for restraining the 
just freedom of the press, ‘ that it was necessary to prevent its daily 
abuse,’ will entirely lose its force when it is shown by a seasonable 
exertion of the laws that the press cannot be abused to any bad pur¬ 
pose, without incurring a suitable punishment.” Such was the opi¬ 
nion of Justice Blackstone. 

Did the present bill, then, lay any previous restraint on publication ? 
Certainly it did. What else can it be considered to prevent a man 
from publishing until he gets security to the amount of £2000. 
Justice Blackstone says, every freeman has a right to lay his senti¬ 
ments before the public. This bill says no man shall lay any senti- 


28 


plunket’s speeches. 


ment before the public unless he be worth £2000. Was not 
this curtailing the liberty of the press 1 

But who were the men that were called on to find security 
for so large a sum 1 Not certainly a very wealthy class of men, 
who could be supposed to be able to find it without inconvenience. 
They were printers ; a business not in the very highest degree 
of repute, probably not so high as it ought. They were men 
who entered into the business of news printing to make a live¬ 
lihood, and who generally began with little or no property, and 
made a living of it principally by their manual labour. If such 
men were called on to give security to the amount of £2000 they 
would be compelled to resign the business. Even of men worth 
that sum, the minister might refuse the securities at his discre¬ 
tion, while the favourite print might be suffered to publish without 
any security at all. Thus the liberty of the press in Ireland would 
receive a vital wound. Every channel of communication with 
the great bulk of the people would be shut up, except those 
which government might think proper to keep open to blazon 
their own praise and their own virtues. There would reign 
throughout the country a deadly silence, except where the venal 
voice of some hireling print might break in upon it by muti¬ 
lated and false statements of facts, by misrepresentation of prin¬ 
ciples, or by base and servile adulation of its masters ! 

What was the occasion of introducing a bill thus aiming at 
the vital essence of the liberty of the press ? It was that some 
publications had appeared aspersing the government, and tend¬ 
ing to excite disaffection and sedition. Why had not the law 
officers of the crown noticed them then, and applied to the law 
of the land for punishment 1 

[Here it was said by some gentlemen on the other side of the house that they 
had done so.] 

I believe gentlemen will find themselves mistaken on this 
subject. The prosecution which has been instituted against Mr. 
O’Connor is for an offence committed long prior to his becoming 
the proprietor of The Press; and though so many complaints 
have been made of the publications in that paper, within the 
last five or six weeks, I have the best reason’ to believe that no 
steps whatsoever have been taken to prosecute him or them. 
It will be said he is not in toe kingdom—true \ but he has 
a ready given security for his appearance to the full amount 
, bribed by this bill, so, that if any argument can be diawu 


the press. 


29 


from the situation of Mr. O’Connor, that argument must bear 
against the bill, as it appears the government have already the 
same hold of him which this bill would give them. And vet 
they complain that he evades justice. 

The licentiousness of the press has been complained of: I will 
tell government a better remedy against it than this bill affords 
them. Let them act in such a manner as to be above its oblo¬ 
quy. Let them restore the constitution. Let them reform the 
abuses which pollute every department. Let them reform the 
parliament. Let them mitigate their system of coercion. Let 
them conciliate the people. Then may they laugh at the slan¬ 
ders of a licentious press. They will have a better defence 
against its malice than this unconstitutional measure can afford 
them. If they want proof of the efficacy of this remedy, I refer 
them to what has occurred on the case of that unfortunate man, 
William Orr, of which so much has been said. The falsest calum¬ 
nies have been thrown on the judges who presided at that trial. 
Do the public believe those calumnies? Are the names of 
Yelverton or Chamberlaine less loved and revered because they 
have been thus calumniated ? No ! The shafts of malice have 
been blunted by the virtue, the integrity, the humanity of those 
learned and upright men ; so will they ever fall innoxious from 
the seven-fold shield of public and private virtue! Sir, the 
constitution of these countries rests on two great pillars—the 
liberty of the press and the trial by jury. The imperious neces¬ 
sity of the times (a necessity of which the existence cannot be 
denied, but into the causes of which it is not now time to in¬ 
quire) has made it necessary to suspend for a time the trial by 
jury. If the liberty of the press is also to be given up, in what 
situation will this country be 1 What security any longer re¬ 
mains to the people to guard them against the encroachments 
- of power 1 what vestige of constitution or liberty ? On broad 
principles I oppose this bill altogether—I decline to go into ob¬ 
jections to particular clauses. 

This speech appears to have startled ministers. The chief secretary himself, 
Mr. Pelham, replied. He shirked the “ broad principles,” canvassed any de¬ 
tails to which Plunket had alluded, and ended by advising his right honourable 
friend, Mr. Attorney-General, to concede the principal point, the amount of secu¬ 
rity. The security was accordingly reduced to £500. 

A swarm of speakers followed, defending the principle of the bill, wholly on 
account of the intolerable audacity of the Press , which treated College-green 
quite as ill as Cork-liill, and either side of the house as if it were no better than 
the other. There was no further resistance, and the bill passed. 

C 


30 


PLUNKET’S SPEECHES. 


Afterwards, the Press was forcibly stopped. A curious fact may be men¬ 
tioned here—that one of the printers in the Press office on that occasion, Mr. 
T. O’Flanagan, was also in the Nation office fifty years afterwards, when the 
authorities effected a similar exploit. 


THE STATE OF THE NATION. 

March 5, 1798. 

The ambition of Pitt’s Irish policy was the Union. In more peaceful times he 
might, perhaps, have attempted it by raising the Catholic element against the 
parliament, as he afterwards half reconciled the leading Catholics to the sacrifice 
of national independence by promising emancipation. But when he found the 
French Republic really determined upon dismembering the British empire by 
revolutionising Ireland, it became necessary to precipitate his designs. On the 
one hand, therefore, he utterly destroyed the character and acquired the control 
of the parliament by the most open and infamous corruption. On the other, 
he tried a policy as wicked as Alva’s, to drive the people into a premature rebel¬ 
lion. Thus the state at which Ireland had arrived, in 1797, was the most exe¬ 
crable that could be conceived. The patriot opposition, headed by Grattan, had 
tormally seceded from parliament in disgust with its corruption and slavishness. 
Martial law was proclaimed throughout the country, and this martial law wat 
administered by an army which, in the words of its own general, Sir Raipb 
Abercrombie, was “ in such a state of licentiousness, as to render it formidable 
to every one but the enemy.” 

A convulsion was evidently imminent. The Irish Whigs made a last effort 
after the meeting of the new parliament to avert it, in which they were aided 
by Fox and his friends, in the English Commons, and Lord Moira came over 
expressly to move conciliation in the Irish House of Lords. 

He lost no time, but early in the session attacked the government for the 
policy they had during the previous year pursued towards the people. He re¬ 
capitulated the abominable acts of cruelty and torture, flogging, picketing, and 
'salf-hanging, by which the confession of crimes had, in innumerable instances, 
^en extorted from persons against whom no legal evidence could be adduced, 
j.id no reasonable cause even of suspicion—persons who, unless under the momen¬ 
tary pressure of excruciating agony, still persisted in the avowal of their inno¬ 
cence. He declared his intention, if his statement of facts was denied, to move 
for the examination of witnesses at the bar of the house. He admitted the 
probable existence of conspiracy in the kingdom: but asked were they “ on 
a loose charge of partial transgression, to inflict punishment on a whole commu¬ 
nity. The state of society was dreadful, indeed, when the safety of every man was 
tt the mercy of a secret informer; when the cupidity, the malevolence, or the 
erroneous suspicions of an individual were sufficient to destroy his neighbour.” 
His lordship’s humane and able speech was concluded by moving an address to 
the Lord Lieutenant, praying for conciliatory measures ; but after a long debate 
the motion was, of course, rejected by a large majority. 

On the 5th of March Sir Lawrence Parsons introduced a similar motion in 
the House of Commons. Parsons was one of the more liberal of the Irish 
aristocrats, who had been bitten in their youth with the political doctrines of the 
French revolution. He was a friend of Tone, and in parliament had always 


STATE OF THE NATION. 


31 


*>ecn an advocate of the most sweeping reform. In the absence of Grattan and 
'.lie old parliamentary opposition, he round himself, for a short time, in the lead 
of that side of the house, and spoke upon this occasion, as upon several others, 
where pluck and power were called for, with an energetic and vehement elo¬ 
quence. The substance of his speech is given in the following passage:— 

“ The distractions of the country were too obvious and too lamentable for him 
to dwell on its circumstances: but he called upon the house, by the motion 
which he was about to make, to inquire into the causes of that distraction, to 
examine into the demands of the people; it was their duty, as representatives 
of that pcopie, to conciliate that people, by conceding those demands, if they 
were just, or convincing them by argument, if they were inadmissible. This 
would be adopting a conduct worthy of the representatives ot the people: this 
would be better than continuing a system of coercion which had failed, or 
branding a whole people as factiously and irreconcileably turbulent.” 

Ilis motion, seconded by Lord Caulfield (son ot the Earl of Charlemont) wa3—. 

“ That this house do forthwith resolve itself into a committee of the whole 
house, to consider whence the present discontents in this country arise, and what 
are the most effectual means of allaying the same.” 

Lord Castlereagh flatly opposed the motion, declaring that the United Irish¬ 
men were not men to be contented or conciliated by any measures of concession 
short of a separation from Ireland, and fraternity with the French Republic; 
that they were in open rebellion, and therefore only to be met by force; that 
the coercive measures of the government had been the consequences,'*nbt the 
causes of the discontents; and that the excesses charged on the soldiery were 
naturally to be expected from this state of things. 

No fewer than twenty-nine speakers followed on the government side. The 
opposition could only command nineteen votes. Dr. Browne, member for the 
college, Tighe, of Wicklow, Newenham, author of the View oj Ireland , Hans 
Hamilton, of Dublin county, and a few more, briefly gave their reasons for sup¬ 
porting the motion, which was attacked by several of the government members, 
as an exhibition of disaffection. Plunket also spoke as follows:— 


It is contrary to my original intention, that I rise to say a 
few words on this question ; nor should I have risen at all, but 
because it is made incumbent on every man who intends to vote 
lor the motion to state his reasons for doing so. Such has been 
the obloquy that has been thrown on those who support it. 

Sir, I feel as strongly as any man can the awful situation ol 
this country; and I feel as much detestation for the wicked 
combination which has brought it into that situation as any 
gentleman who has spoken this night. If I could more emphati¬ 
cally express that detestation than they have done, I would do it. 
That situation, however, it is which imposes on the house a pe¬ 
culiar and imperious necessity of adopting every fair and hon¬ 
ourable measure which may probably lead to lessen or avert the 
difficulties which press upon the state; and could I believe that 
by any sentiment which I shall utter this night those difficul¬ 
ties or the discontent of the country would be in any degree 


32 


plunket’s speeches 


aggravated, my lips should be closed. No wish can be farther 
from my heart than to say anything which by possibility may 
have such a consequence. 

It has been said by an honourable gentleman in the course of 
this debate [Mr. Daly], that there exist in Ireland only two 
parties—those who distrust and those who support the laws. 
The state of Ireland is not such as this division insinuates; for 
if it means anything, it must mean that there are only two par¬ 
ties in the country, one who support and the other who oppose 
the government. I say there are in this country hundreds of 
thousands who, though they are neither in favour with the ad¬ 
ministration nor friends to their measures, but, on the contrary, 
dislike their principles and their system, yet are not with the 
United Irishmen, but entertain a more strong disapprobation of 
them and their plots. In the north of Ireland there are num¬ 
bers of men who understand the constitution as well as any of 
the respectable assembly whom I address—men who not only 
know the constitution, but the best interests of this country 
better than any man who hears me, because their understand¬ 
ings are unsophisticated by that prejudice which I suppose it 
will not be denied is the natural result of peculiar situations 
and peculiar interests. These men are not combined with the 
traitors of the society of United Irishmen, and yet these men, 
however well inclined they may be to the British constitution, 
may entertain a very strong dislike to government and to their 
measures. If they see seats in this house bought and sold—if 
they not only see them bought, but made a retailable commodity 
in which government traffics— 

[Mr. Plunket was called to order by Mr. Bagwell, who said such language 
was unparliamentary, and ought not to be tolerated.] 

Sir, the honourable member quite mistakes my meaning. 
I am as confident as the right hon. gentleman I address that no 
seat in this house was ever bought or sold. No member in the 
house knows that this is impossible better than I do. But, sir, 
suppose those ignorant and foolish people of the north, of wnom 
I have been speaking, were told, among many other equally 
ialse and slanderous tales that are every day circulated against 
our innocent government, and against this most honourable and 
immaculate assembly—suppose they were told that seats were 
really bought and sold, and suppose they should be foolish 
eiicugh to believe the story, what conclusion must they not 


STATE OF THE NATION. 


33 


draw from these premises 1 The learned members of this house 
who know what is meant by “ knowledge of the world” and 
“ the usage of parliament,” probably would call this practice by 
a soft name, but those unpolished people would certainly cab 
such a traffic base. They would, no doubt, say it was a viola¬ 
tion of the constitutional rights of the subject, a shameful de¬ 
bauchery of the morality of the nation, a scandalous departure 
from morals, the commencement of a crime among the higher 
ranks, which must soon descend with accelerated velocity to the 
lower orders, where it will vitiate whatever is sound in then- 
principles, and make loyalty itself venal. If such errors can 
possibly have crept among any class of the king’s subjects, 
would it not be wise to conciliate such men, and make so many 
honest, intelligent men fast friends to the constitution and the 
government, instead of leaving them to vibrate between loyalty 
and disaffection—a prize to reward the industry of sedition i 
Will you freeze that blood which, if you act as you ought, ia 
ready to flow for your state ? 

Let me not be told that to agree to a motion of this kind ia 
to conciliate traitors. Give me leave to tell you, sir, that the 
United Irishmen dread nothing so much as your granting such 
a measure—they tremble lest you should, because if you do you 
tear off the mask with which they have hitherto covered them¬ 
selves, and strip them of those pretexts by which they have 
crowded their ranks. It is by this mode you must put them 
down. The rebellion of the mind, by which you are assaulted, 
is dreadful, and not to be combated by force. You have tried 
that remedy for three years, and the experiment has failed. 
You have stopped the mouth of the public by a convention bill 
—have committed the property and liberty of the people to the 
magistrate by the insurrection act—you have suspended the 
Habeas Corpus act—you have had, and you have used a strong 
military force—as great a force as you could call for ; and there 
has been nothing that could tend to strengthen your hands or 
enable you to beat down this formidable conspiracy that you 
have not been invested with. What effect has your system pro¬ 
duced ? Discontent and sedition have grown threefold under 
your management. What objection, then, can you urge against 
trying another mode 1 If on trial it shall not be found to do 
good, you are only where you were. If it succeed, you have 
secured an inestimable benefit. Do not let me be understood 
aa if I meant to withdraw from the hand c5 government any ol 


34 


plunket’s speeches. 


the strength which they possess at this moment. No, if more 
were wanted I would give it, if the traitors could be put down 
by it; but while you go with the sword in one hand, I would 
have you carry the olive in the other. 

Gentlemen have talked of French principles. These principles 
have grown indeed, but it is because they were not resisted by 
proper means. I wonder not that when assailed by these prin¬ 
ciples, the rotten fabric of the French monarchy tumbled into 
atoms ; nor do I wonder that they carried terror and destruc¬ 
tion through the despotisms of Europe. But I did hope that 
when the hollow spectre of French democracy approached the 
mild and chaste dignity of the British constitution, it would 
have fled before it. It would have done so had you not de¬ 
stroyed the British constitution before it reached us. You op¬ 
posed it then with force, and its progress grew upon you. Restore 
the constitution, and it will defend you from this monster. Re¬ 
form your parliament. Cease to bestow upon the worthless the 
wealth you extract from the bowels of your people. Let the prin¬ 
ciples of that revolution, which you profess to admire, regulate 
your conduct, and the horrid shade will melt into air before you. 

You complain that French principles have taken hold of 
Ulster. The connexion then must have been forced, for they 
are not congenial. The people of the North are an industrious, 
plain, and sensible people. They have acquired property, aiid 
they know the worth of it. They have got a religious educa¬ 
tion, and they know the value of it. What have the atheism 
and frippery of France to do with such a people ? What volun¬ 
tary connection would the religious people of the North have 
with the mad wickedness of those who have pulled down God 
Irom Heaven to establish anarchy upon earth? I warn the 
minister not to treat this as a mere colonial question ; it is one 
in which the interests of the empire are deeply concerned. He 
has already passed a bill of indemnity for crimes committed 
against the people. It is now time he should pass one for the 
nation. I call on him to recollect how severely be will be liable 
to account to his country and to his own conscience, if he suf¬ 
fers this question to be made an instrument to separate the 
two countries. 

Isaac Cony, afterwards Castlereagh’s Chancellor of the Exchequer, replied, 
with a malicious, but clumsy inuendo. To whatever barristers and Presby¬ 
terian ministers it applied, it certainly touched neither Plunket nor his father. 

The horn gentleman who s^oke last^he said) had stated that there were huu. 


THE SHEARES CASE. 


35 


drcds and thousands among the industrious and sensible people of the North, 
who were intent only on reform, and were not involved in the conspiracy. He 
wondered where the learned gentleman found those men; he knew some of a 
learned profession there who were among the first that engaged in that conspi¬ 
racy—he knew others in a sacred profession, who had gone so far as to abuse 
their pulpits for the purpose of treason.” 

The motion was negatived by 156 to 19, 


THE SHEARES CASE. 

July 4, 1798. 

The only case in which Plunket appeared during the rebellion was that of the 
brothers Sheares, in which he was second to Curran. 1 refer the reader to 
Davis’s edition of Curran for a graphic sketch of the trial. Plunket opened for 
Henry Sheares. Half of his speech is an argument on points of law, which 1 
omit, and as Curran was to follow, he allowed himself little latitude to expa¬ 
tiate on the general merits of the case; but the following passage on Armstrong’s 
evidence is in his most trenchant style. The evidence against Henry Sheares 
was very slight. The only evidence, in fact, was that of Captain Armstrong; 
and at the interview which took place with that miserable informer,. John 
Sheares, the ablest and boldest of the brothers, was always spokesman. Henry 
only listened and assented. 


A vert few observations remain in point of fact. What I 
have hitherto said applies to both the prisoners, so far as respects 
the law of the case. But with regard to the facts, I must trouble 
you, upon the case of Mr. Henry Sheares, much less indeed 
than I would otherwise do, if I was not to be followed by a very 
able advocate, who will speak to the evidence. 

With regard to Mr. Henry Sheares, the evidence against him 
jests upon the testimony of Captain Armstrong alone. As to 
t he law stated by Mr. Ponsonby, of two witnesses being neces¬ 
sary, I will not give any positive opinion upon it. I do not 
pretend to say whether the statute in England enacted a new 
law, or only declared the old. There are great authorities, who 
say it is only a declaratory statute—among others, Lord Coke 
says, two witnesses were necessary by the common law. If he 
be right, we are entitled to the benefit of the common law, and 
will claim it. But I throw that out of the case—not concluded 
indeed ; but supposing that, in point of law, the testimony of 
one witness is sufficient to convict, I beg leave to observe upon 
the nature of that testimony. What the kind of story it is 
which fell from the lips of the witness—how far it is natural or 


36 


plunket’s speeches. 


probable, or entitled to credit, merits your consideration, when 
compared with your observance upon life and manners. That 
so rash and indiscreet a confidence should be reposed in this 
stripling, without any previous acquaintance of himself, his 
life, or manners—without any pledge of secrecy—but rashly 
and suddenly, as if he had fallen in love with him upon first 
interview—is matter for your conjecture. How far it was an 
honourable ministry, is for your judgment. 

In the case of a common informer, his evidence is weighed 
with caution. Every circumstance throwing a doubt upon it is 
to be attended to. If the testimony exceeds the common rules 
of life and course of experience, the j ury are cautious in admit¬ 
ting it. But this is not the case of a common informer. It is 
not the case of an accomplice, who repents of his crime. That 
might be the fate of an honourable mind. A man may be in¬ 
volved in the guilt of conspiring or treason, and retrieve him¬ 
self nobly by making an atonement to his country and his God, 
by a fair and full confession of the crime. But that is not the 
case here. This is the case of a man going for the purpose of 
creating and producing guilt, that he might make discovery of 
it. Does it not appear that the conception of the guilt was 
entertained in the mind, if not fomented by the witness. You 
are to consider the different motives and movements of the 
human heart, and how wavering dispositions may be taken ad¬ 
vantage of, and urged on by dexterous persuasion to a conduct 
which the seduced may abhor. You are not now trying whether 
the prisoner be a man of strong frame—of firm nerves and 
mind, capable of resisting allurements of guilt aud temptation 
to vice. But you are to try whether the evidence has satisfied 
you that he has been guilty of treason. 

Suppose now the evidence to be true : would it not shake the 
mind of an ordinary man, not of the most strong and firm dis¬ 
position, if he saw an officer of the camp making declarations 
hostile to government—making a sacrifice of his situation, say¬ 
ing, “ I will betray the camp which I am appointed to guard” 
—if he goes and persecutes another with his volunteering trea¬ 
son, fastens upon him in the streets, follows him abroad, and 
haunts him at his house ; I say, are you surprised at seeing the 
other listen for a moment to the temptation, when he perceives 
that the man whose more immediate duty it is to resist the 
treason, has adopted it ? I say this, supposing for a moment 
that the evidence is true: I will show you presently it is not. 


37 


THE SIIEARES CASE. 

Was it the part of an honest man to seek repeated interviews 
—to follow the other to his house and into the bosom of his 
family, until at last he lodged him in a gaol ? Did he know 
the prisoners before ?—was he acquainted with their lives and 
characters ? No; but, seized with a sudden zeal of turning in¬ 
former against them, he insinuates himself into their acquain¬ 
tance. I can conceive the zeal of an honest mind in the moment 
of mistaken enthusiasm to be led into an act of vice to save his 
country. I can conceive an exertion of Roman virtue flinging 
morals into the gulf as a sacrifice to patriotism. But what a 
life must there have been to claim praise for that act of enthu¬ 
siastic ardour ? There must have been a life of religious feel¬ 
ings, of continued virtue, and disinterested, honourable views. 
In such a case you can, by exerting your imagination, account 
for an act of perfidy to save the country. But does this wit¬ 
ness stand in that point of view ? No, gentlemen, by his own 
confession he is convicted, and we shall show by a crowd of wit¬ 
nesses, whose characters are above imputation, that he does not 
believe in the existence of a God, or a future state of rewards and 
punishments—that he is a notorious republican, and devoid of 
the principles of loyalty. Hear his own account. Was he a 
man of decided loyalty—attached to his king and country 1 No; 
he confessed he had been in the habit of reading Paine’s pamphlets 
—his Rights of Man and his A ge of Reason —his creed was founded 
upon these, and he drinks republicanism as a toast—and this man, 
the companion of Byrne, and who had been foolishly democratic, 
engages in conference with Mr. Sheares, and enters upon the 
new office of informer for the good of his country l It is 
surprising that between the violence of republicanism and the 
zeal of an informer for the crown, the mean proportion of vir¬ 
tuous patriotism could not be found ! The friend of Mr. 
Patrick Byrne—the drinker of republican toasts, suddenly be¬ 
comes a spy for the good of his country ! You see, gentlemen, 
the evidence which has been laid before you. Is there any one 
fact brought forward, except the naked testimony of this in¬ 
former, to fasten guilt upon Mr. Henry Sheares ? He has chosen 
his time of interview with great discretion ; no person has been 
present at the conversations, but the prisoners, who cannot give 
evidence for each other. Has the person who introduced them 
been brought forward, or the seijeant of the militia? They are 
in the power of the crown; or did the counsel for the prosecu¬ 
tion conceive this witness to be feo immaculate, that he could not 


38 


plcnket’s speeches. 


be impeached, and not necessary to be supported t Why not 
produce Connors ? He is in the barrack. Why not produce 
Byrne ? He is in prison. Why not produce Fannan ? Why 
not produce any one to give steadiness to the tottering evidence 
of this man ? 

Gentlemen, as to the proclamation which has been commented 
upon, it is not in the handwriting of the prisoner, Mr. Henry 
Sheares. It was not in his possession ; he knew nothing of it; 
he had an opportunity of destroying it, if he chose, or knew of 
it. Whatever the effect of it may be, as applying to the other 
prisoner, I meddle not with it. But I do not think it affects 
the other, and most certainly, gentlemen, the court will tell you, 
that this evidence is not to weigh a feather upon your minds in 
determining the case of one man, to whom it does not apply, 
although it may be thought to have some relation to another. 
It is an unpublished, blotted, and unfinished paper. The mere 
circumstance of that blotted paper being found in the house of 
Mr. Henry Sheares, where Mr. John Sheares resorted—not re¬ 
ceived by Mr. Henry Sheares, not acknowledged by him; on the 
contrary, from the evidence you must infer he knew nothing 
about it—cannot weigh with you, nor affect his life. Is it 
proved that Mr. Henry Sheares did any act—corrupted any man 
or frequented any society, or took any political step, beyond 
the mere colouring which Captain Armstrong gives to the con¬ 
versation between them ? And how is that, with regard to 
Mr. Henry Sheares? Did he appear eager to gain proselytes! 
At the first interview, Mr. Henry Sheares declined to say any¬ 
thing ; he departed, and did not return that day. Did that 
bhow an eagerness to gain a proselyte? He deserted Captain 
Armstrong, is hunted and persecuted by him; he infests the 
society of his wife and children—still no act is done ; it rests 
iu conversation ; not a single act done; no men corrupted; no 
societies frequented, arms taken up, or furnished to others; no 
net countenancing rebellion, or hostility to the crown. 

Gentlemen, we will prove by a crowd of. witnesses that this 
gentleman, Mr. Henry Sheares, has been unconnected with and 
unconcerned in politics, devoted to pursuits of a different nature, ' 
to literature, to science, an attention to private affairs; enjoy¬ 
ing the society of an amiable wife and children, beyond whose 
company he sought no pleasure. You certainly are not to be 
influenced by humanity. But your verdict must bo founded 
in justice and in truth. You cannot suppose that a man in 


THE UNION. 


59 


possession of every comfort and enjoyment, with a wife and six 
children, would voluntarily engage in treason; would rashly 
confide his life, his fortune, and his family to this stripling of 
an informer, whom he never before beheld. 

Gentlemen, I have troubled you too long. I now conclude, 
and with a firm hope, I trust my client to your hands. 

On the following morning, the brothers walked hand in hand to the gibbet 


THE UNION. 

December 9, 1798. 

The rebellion had been completely crashed. Its leaders had been exiled 
or executed The last French expedition had failed. The insurgents had all 
surrendered, save a few outlying rapparees in the Wicklow mountains. The 
country lay palpitating under a reign of terror as suspicious and remorseless as 
Robespierre’s. So the time had come to moot the Union. So strong, how¬ 
ever, was the feeling against annexation to England, that the first rumour which 
appeared upon the subject in the newspaper press ( Evening Post , Oct. 13, 1798) 
was couched in the following daring terms:—“The public ear has been filled 
for three days past with the report of a meditated Union; but, although we 
cannot wholly pass unnoticed a subject so much engaging the public attention, 
yet we do not deem ourselves authorised to treat it as an admitted fact; or by a 
base and coward compliance to the times, or an honest and dangerous expression 
of resentment, seem for a moment to accredit what, according to the established 
laws and constitution of this kingdom, must be high treason in the person who 
should propose it.” 

The rumour grew, however. Soon appeared the Castle pamphlet, “ Argu¬ 
ments for and against an Union,” written by the Under-Secretary Cooke. 
IIushe replied in the witty brochure, “Cease your funning.” Thenceforth the 
press teemed with pamphlets. Above a hundred remain on library shelves, the 
relics of that momentous controversy. 

The first meeting of any national importance was that of the Irish bar, called 
by requisition which fourteen of the king’s counsel signed. Saurin opened an 
animated debate by moving, “ That the measure of a legislative Union of this 
kingdom and Great Britain is an innovation, which it would be highly dangerous 
and improper to propose at the present juncture in this country.” Mr. St. George 
Daly moved an adjournment. In the course of the debate, 

Mr. Plunket urged the extreme danger and impropriety of agi¬ 
tating the question of Union at such a time as the present. Should 
the administration however propose a Union now, he had no doubt 
but it would be carried. Fear, animosity, a want of time to consider 
coolly its consequences, and forty thousand British troops in Ire¬ 
land, would carry the measure. But, in a little time the people 
would awaken as from a dream, and what consequences would 


40 


PLUNKET S SPEECHES. 


then follow, he trembled to think. For himself, he declared that he 
opposed an union, principally because he was convinced it would 
accelerate a total separation of the two countries. He dissuaded 
the meeting from adopting the motion of adjournment, because 
it would give a handle for further misrepresentation to those 
libellers who had already dared to misrepresent the motives and 
conduct of the bar. It would give them an opportunity to say 
that the adjournment of the question argued the sense of the 
bar to be for a Union. Those audacious libellers had already 
ventured to misrepresent, in a public print, the meeting of the 
bar as a military body on Friday last. He could not believe the 
insolent libeller was one of the body. But some person, within 
or without, had taken occasion in ten minutes after that meet¬ 
ing was held to carry to the Castle the falsehood, that the meet¬ 
ing broke up because the good sense of the bar thought it not 
right in them to agitate in any manner the question of an 
Union. 

The original resolution was carried by 166 votes to 32. Of these 32, every 
man was afterwards promoted at the expense of tws seniors and superiors in the 
profession. St. George Daly, of whom it was said that his first brief was the 
Union, was immediately appointed to the prime sergeantcy (then the highest law 
office in Ireland), from which Mr. Fitzgerald was dismissed for his hostility to the 
measure. He and seven of his supporters were subsequently made judges—fifteen 
assistant-barristers, and the other ten appointed to valuable commissionerships 
• or legal offices. 


THE UNION. 

January 22, 1799. 

Thf. first of the Union debates occurred upon the occasion of the Viceroy's 
speech in opening the session of 1799. During the previous six weeks, the 
country had been full of agitation and anxiety, the Castle busy with intrigue 
and corruption. After the bar meeting, the City of Dublin, the University, 
the freeholders of Galway, Westmeath, Louth, and Dublin counties declared 
against the Union. The opposition began to concert their tactique, the govern¬ 
ment to purchase every vote they could, and to intimidate where they could not 
hope to buy. The prime sergeant, Mr. Fitzgerald, and the chancellor of the 
exchequer, Sir John Parnell, the most respectable members of the Irish admi¬ 
nistration, were dismissed on avowing themselves anti-Unionists, and threats of 
discharge were held over all office-holders who should dare to oppose the govern¬ 
ment. 

In the following passage of his speech, Lord Cornwallis raised the question 
before parliament 


THE UNION. 


<1 


M The more I have reflected on the situation and circumstances of thi* 
kingdom, considering on the one hand the strength and stability of Great Bri¬ 
tain, and on the other, these divisions which have shaken Ireland to its founda¬ 
tion, the more anxious I am for some permanent adjustment which may ex¬ 
tend the advantages enjoyed by our sister kingdom to every part of the island. 
The unremitting industry with which our enemies persevere in their avowed ob¬ 
ject of endeavouring to effect a separation of this kingdom from Great Britain 
must have engaged your particular attention, and his majesty commands me to 
express his anxious hope that this consideration, joined to the sentiment of mu¬ 
tual affection and common interest, may dispose the parliaments in both king¬ 
doms to provide the most effectual means of maintaining and improving a con¬ 
nexion essential to their common security and of consolidating, as far as possi¬ 
ble, into one firm and lasting fabric, the strength, the powers, and the re¬ 
sources of the British empire . n 

A most animated and protracted debate followed, continuing for twenty-two 
hours, from 1 o’clock on the 22nd to 11 o’clock on the 23rd. 

Sir John Parnell opened the opposition in a vigorous and statesmanlike argu¬ 
ment. He was followed by Mr. Tighe, who, on objecting to concur in the 
address as a Unionist document, was assured by Lord Castlereagh that an 
acquiescence in the address did not at all involve an approbation of legislative 
Union. It only premised that the house would. deliberate on the best means of 
improving the connexion. George Ponsonbv spoke next, the leading speech of 
the anti-unionists, and ended a trenchant attack upon the measure and the 
ministry by moving as an amendment, that the house would maintain the con¬ 
stitution of 1782. Sir Lawrence Parsons, Mr. F. Falkiner, Lord Clements, Mr. 
l itzgerald (late prime sergeant), Colonel Vereker, Mr. O’Hara, Mr. Lee, Mr. 
Orookshank, Colonel Maxwell, and Colonel Archdall followed in support of the 
amendment, in speeches that, as the debate tolled deep into the night, seemed to 
rise with every speaker and every sentence into bolder and loftier peals of elo¬ 
quence. In a speech of a few sentences, Colonel Archdall declared that nothing 
could induce him, or, as he believed, any man in the north-west of Ireland, to 
vote for so infamous a measure. Mr. Jonah Barrington followed. The only 
speakers upon the government side to this stage of the debate had been St- 
George Daly, Sir Boyle Roche, and the Knight of Kerry; and none of them 
had dared to treat the opposition offensively or to openly avow the design of 
government. Castlereagh, who had occupied himself during the debate with 
completing the purchase of some of his doubtful votes, appears at this stage 
to have perceived that it was necessary to stop the victorious career of the 
opposition, and accordingly, Avlien Barrington stated that corrupt and uncon¬ 
stitutional means had been used by the government to carry the measure, he 
at once changed his course, assumed the insolent and defiant tone which he pre¬ 
served through the subsequent debates called Barrington to order, and threatened 
to have his words taken down. On the instant Plunket addressed the Speaker, 
reiterated Barrington’s words as expressing his opinions also, and said that if the 
noble lord was in a humour of taking down words he would give him an opportu¬ 
nity, as it was his intention before the debate closed to use the same language and 
stronger. On this, Castlereagh did not press the question, and Barrington con¬ 
tinued his speech in the same tone. He was followed by Francis Dobbs, George 
Knox, Sir J. Freke, and Hans Hamilton against, and by Sir J. Blaquiere for the 
Jnion. 

At last Castlereagh rose, and said that he “ trusted no man would decide on 
i measure of such importance as that in part before the house, on private or 


i2 


plunket’s speeches. 


personal motives; for it a decision were thus to be influenced, ft would be the 
most unfortunate that could ever affect the country. What was the object of 
this measure but such as every loyal man, who really loved his country, must 
feel the strongest attachment to. By an incorporation of our legislature with 
that of Great Britain, it would not only consolidate the strength and glory of 
the empire, but it would change our internal and local government to a system 
ot strength and calm security, instead of being a garrison in the island. Here 
was but a part of many and numerous advantages, which the stage of the business 
did not then render necessary to be entered into, and which would come more 
suitably at a future period. As to the argument of the parliament’s incompe¬ 
tence to entertain the question, he did not expect to hear such an argument from 
constitutional lawyers, or to hear advanced the position, that a legislature was 
not at all times competent to do that foi which it could only have been instituted 
—the adoption of the best means to promote the general happiness and prospe¬ 
rity. After the pielancholy state to which this country had been reduced, his 
majesty’s minister^ would feel that they abdicated their duty to the empire, if 
they did not seriously consider that state, and adopt the best remedy for the evils 
which it comprised. It was the misfortune of this country to have in it no fixed 
principles on which the human mind could rest—no one standard to which the 
different prejudices of the country could be accommodated. What was the price 
of connection at present with Great Britain ? A military establishment far be¬ 
yond our natural means to support, and for which we are indebted to Great 
Britain, who is also obliged to guarantee our public loans. It is not by flattery 
that the country could be saved—truths, however disagreeable, must be told— 
and if Ireland did not boldly look her situation in the face and accept that Union 
which would strengthen and secure her, she would perhaps have no alternative 
but to sink into the embrace o; French fraternity. You talk, said his lordship, 
of national pride and independence, but where is the solidity of this boast ? You 
have not the British constitution—nor can you have it consistently with your 
present species of connection with Great Britain: that constitution does not 
recognise two separate and independent legislatures under one crown—the greater 
country mus. lead—the lesser naturally follow, and must be practically subordi¬ 
nate in imperial concerns; but this necessary and beneficial operation of the 
general will must be preceded by establishing one common interest. 

“ As the pride of this country advances with her wealth, it may happen that 
you will not join Great Britain in her wars—it is only a common polity that 
will make that certain. Incorporate with Great Britain, and you have a common 
interest and common means. If Great Britain calls for your subjection, resist 
it; but if she wishes to unite with you on terms of equality, ’tis madness not 
to accent the offer.” 

Plunket, who had apparently been waiting for an opportunity of reply to the 
Secretary, followed in a speech of which Sir Jonah Barrington speaks in terms 
that are hardly an exaggeration;— 

“ At length Mr. Plunket arose, and in the ablest speech ever heard by any 
member in that parliament, went at once to the grand and decisive point, the 
incompetence of parliament: he could go no further on principle than Mr. Pon- 
sonby, but his language was irresistible, and he left nothing to be urged. It 
was perfect in eloquence, and unanswerable in reasoning. Its effect was inde¬ 
scribable ; and Lord Castlereagh, whom he personally assailed, seemed to shrink 
from the encounter. That speech was of great weight, and it proved the elo¬ 
quence, the sincerity, and the fortitude of the speaker.” 

J udging from the length of the preceding debate, this speech must have been 
spoken after daybreak on the morning of the 23rd. 


YHK UNION. 


43 


Sin, I shall make no apology for troubling you at this late hour, ex¬ 
hausted though I am, in mind and body, and suffering, though you 
must be, under a similar pressure. This is a subject which must 
arouse the slumbering, and might almost reanimate the dead. It is 
a question whether Ireland shall cease to be free. It is a question in¬ 
volving our dearest interests and for ever. 

Sir, I congratulate the house on the manly temper with which this 
measure has been discussed: I congratulate them on the victory, 
whidi I already see they have obtained; a victory which I antici¬ 
pate from the bold and generous sentiments which have been ex¬ 
pressed on this side of the house, and which I see confirmed in the 
doleful and discomfited visages of the miserable group whom I see 
before me. Sir, I congratulate you on the candid avowal of the 
noble lord who has just sat down. He has exposed this project in 
its naked hideousness and deformity. He has told us that the ne¬ 
cessity of sacrificing our independence flows from the nature of our 
connexion. It is now avowed that this measure does not flow from 
any temporary cause; that it is not produced in consequence of any 
late rebellion, or accidental disturbance in the country; that its necessity 
does not arise from the danger of modern political innovations, or from 
recent attempts of wicked men to separate this country from Great 
Britain. No; we are now informed by the noble lord, that the condition 
of our slavery is engrafted on the principle of our connexion, and that 
by the decrees of fate, Ireland has been doomed a dependant colonj, 
from her cradle. 

I trust that after this barefaced avowal there can be little differ¬ 
ence of opinion. I trust that every honest man who regards the free¬ 
dom of Ireland, or who regards the connexion with England, will, by 
his vote on this night, refute this unfounded and seditious doctrine. 
Good God, sir, have I borne arms to crush the wretches who propa¬ 
gated the false and wicked creed, “ that British connexion was hos¬ 
tile to Irish freedom,” and am I now bound to combat it, coming 
from the lips of the noble lord who is at the head of our administra¬ 
tion. 

But, sir, in answer to the assertion of the noble lord, I will quote 
the authority of the Duke of Portland, in his speech from the throne, 
at the end of the session, 1782, “ that the two kingdoms are now 
one, indissoluble, connected by unity of constitution and unity of 
interest, thafr the danger and security, the prosperity and calamity of 
Jhe one must mutually affect the other; that they stand and fall to¬ 
gether.” I will quote the authority of the king, lords, and com¬ 
mons of Ireland, who asserted and established the constitution of o& 


u 


plunket’s speeches. 


independent parliament founded on that connexion; and the authority 
of the king, lords, and commons of Great Britain, who adopted and 
confirmed it. With as little prospect of persuasion has the noble 
lord cited to us the example of Scotland; and as little am I tempted 
to purchase, at the expense of two bloody rebellions, a state of 
poverty and vassalage, at which Ireland, at her worst state, before 
she attained a free trade or a free constitution, would have spurned. 

But, sir, the noble lord does not seem to repose very implicit con¬ 
fidence in his own arguments, and he amuses you by saying, that in 
adopting this address you do not pledge yourselves to a support of 
the measure in any future stage. Beware of this delusion. If you 
adopt this aculress, you sacrifice your constitution. You concede the 
principle, and any future inquiries can only be as to the terms. Foi 
them you need entertain no solicitude, on the terms you can never 
disagree. Give up your independence, and Great Britain will grant 
you whatever terms you desire. Give her the key, and she will con¬ 
fide everything to its protection. There are no advantages you can 
ask which she will not grant, exactly for the same reason that the 
unprincipled spendthrift will subscribe, without reading it, the bond 
which he has no intention of ever discharging. I say, therefore, that 
if you ever mean to make a stand for the liberties of Ireland, now, 
and now only, is the moment for doing it. 

But, sir, the freedom of discussion which has taken place on this 
side of the house has, it seems, given great offence to gentlemen on 
the treasury bench. They are men of nice and punctilious honour, 
and they will not endure that anything should be said which implies 
a reflection on their untainted and virgin integrity. They threatened 
to take down the words of an honourable gentleman who spoke before 
me, because they conveyed an insinuation; and I promised them on 
that occasion, that if the fancy for taking down words continued, I 
would indulge them in it to the top of their bent. Sir, I am deter¬ 
mined to keep my word with them, and I now will not insinuate, but 
I will directly assert, that base and wicked as is the object proposed, 
the means used to effect it have been more flagitious and abominable. 

Do } ou choose to take down my words ? Do you dare me to the 
proof? 

Sir, I had been induced to think that we had at the head of the 
executive government of this country a plain, honest soldier, unac¬ 
customed to, and disdaining the intrigues of politics, and who, as an 
additional evidence of the directness and purity of his views, had 
chosen for his secretary a simple and modest youth, puer ingenux 
vuUus ingenuigue pudoris , whose inexperience was the voucher ot 


THE UNION. 


45 


his innocence; and yet I will be bold to say, that dining the vice¬ 
royalty of this unspotted veteran, and during the administration of 
this unassuming stripling—within these last six weeks, a system oi 
black corruption has been carried on within the walls of the castle 
which would disgrace the annals of the worst period of the kistc~y 
of either country. 

Do you choose to take down my words ? 

I need call no witness to your bar to prove them. I see two right 
honourable gentlemen sitting within your walls, who had long and 
faithfully served the crown, and who have been dismissed, because 
they dared to express a sentiment in favour of the freedom of their 
country. I see another honourable gentleman, who has been forced 
to resign his place as commissioner of the revenue because he ref used 
to co-operate in this dirty job of a dirty administration. 

Do you dare to deny this ? 

I say that at this moment the threat of dismissal from office i 3 
suspended over the heads of the members who now sit around me, 
in order to influence their votes on the question of this night, involv¬ 
ing everything that can be sacred or dear to man. 

Do you desire to take down my words? Utter the desire, and I 
will prove the truth of them at your bar. 

Sir, I would warn you against the consequences of carrying this 
measure by such means as this, but that I see the necessary defeat 
of it in the honest and universal indignation which the adoption of 
such means excites. I see the protection against the wickedness of 
the plan in the imbecility of its execution ; and I congratulate my 
country, that when a design was formed against her liberties, the 
prosecution of it was intrusted to such hands as it is now placed 
in. 

The example of the prime minister of England, imitable in its 
vices, may deceive the noble lord. The minister of England has his 
faults. He abandoned in his latter years the principle of reform, by 
professing which he had attained the early confidence of the people 
of England, and in the whole of his political conduct he has shown 
himself haughty and intractable; but it must be admitted that he 
is endowed by nature with a towering and trauscendent intellect, and 
that the vastness of his resources keeps pace with the magnificence 
and unboundedness of his projects. I thank God, that it is much 
more easy for him to transfer his apostacy and his insolence than his 
comprehension and his sagacity; and I feel the safety of my country 
in the wretched feebleness of her enemy. I cannot fear that the con¬ 
stitution which has been founded by *he wisdom of sages, and cemen- 

D 


PLUNKET'S SPEECHES. 


46 

ted by the blood of patriots and of heroes, is to be smitten to its 
centre by such a green and sapless twig as this. 

Sir, the noble lord has shown much surprise that he should hear 
a doubt expressed concerning the competence of parliament to do 
this act. I am sorry that I also must contribute to increase the 
surprise of the noble lord. If I mistake not, his surprise will be much 
augmented before this question shall be disposed of; he shall see and 
hear what he has never before seen or heard, and be made acquainted 
with sentiments to which, probably, his heart has been a stranger. 

Sir, I, in the most express terms, deny the competency of parlia¬ 
ment to do this act. I warn you, do not dare to lay your hands on 
the constitution. I tell you, that if, circumstanced as you are, you 
pass this act, it will be a nullity, and that no man in Ireland will be 
bound to obey it. I make the assertion deliberately—I repeat it, 
and I call on any man who hears me to take down my words. You 
have not been elected for this purpose. You are appointed to make 
laws, and not legislatures. You are appointed to act under the con¬ 
stitution, not to alter it. You are appointed to exercise the func¬ 
tions of legislators, and not to transfer them. And if you do so your 
act is a dissolution ot the government. You resolve society into its 
original elements, and no man in the land is bound to obey you. 

Sir, I state doctrines which are not merely founded in the immutable 
laws ot justice and of truth. I state not merely the opinions of the 
ablest men who have written on the science of government, but I 
state the practice oi our constitution as settled at the era of the revo¬ 
lution, and I state the doctrine uuder which the house of Hanover 
derives its title to the throne. Has the king a right to transfer his 
crowm ? Is he competent to annex it to the crown of Spain or any 
other country ? No—but he may abdicate it and every man who 
knows the constitution knows the consequence, the right reverts 
to the next in succession—if they all abdicate, it reverts to the 
people. The man who questions this doctrine, in the same breath 
must arraign the sovereign on the throne as an usurper. Are you 
competent to transfer your legislative rights to the French council ot 
five hundred ? Are you competent to transfer them to the British 
parliament? I answer, no. When you transfer you abdicate, and 
the great original trust reverts to the people from whom it issued. 
Yourselves you may extinguish, but parliament you cannot extinguish 
It is enthroned in the hearts of the people. It is enshrined in tht> 
sanctuary of the constitution. It is immortal as the island wdiich it 
protects. As well might the frantic suicide hope that the act which 
destroys his miserable body should extinguish his eternal soul. Again, 


THE UNION. 


47 


I therefore warn you, do not dare to lay your hands on tne constitu¬ 
tion ; it is above your power. 

Sir, I do not say that the parliament and the people, by mutual con¬ 
sent and co-operation, may not change the form of the constitution. 

Whenever such a case arises it must be decided on its own merits_ 

but that is not this case. If government considers this a season pecu¬ 
liarly fitted tor experiments on the constitution, they may call on the 
people. I ask you are you ready to do so ? Are you ready to abide 
the event of such an appeal ? What is it you must, in that event, 
submit to the people ? Not this particular project; for if you dissolve 
the present form of government, they become free to choose any other 
—you fling them to the fury of the tempest—you must call on them 
to unhouse themselves of the established constitution, and to fashion 
to themselves another. I ask again, is this the time for an experi¬ 
ment of that nature ? Thank God, the people have manitested no 
such wish—so far as they have spoken, their voice is decidedly against 
this daring innovation. You kuow that no voice has been uttered 
in its favour, and you cannot be infatuated enough to take confidence 
from the silence which prevails in some parts of the kingdom : if you 
know how to appreciate that silence, it is more formidable than the 
most clamorous opposition—you may be rived and shivered by the 
lightning before you hear the peal of the thunder ! 

But, sir, we are told that we should discuss this question with 
calmness and composure. I am called on to surrender my birth-right 
and my honour, and I am told I should be calm and should be com¬ 
posed. National pride! Independence of our country! These, we 
are tv. .d by the minister, are only vulgar topics fitted for the meridian 
of the mob, but unworthy to be mentioned to such an enlightened 
assembly as this; they are trinkets and gewgaws fit to catch the 
fancy of childish and unthinking people like you, sir, or like your 
predecessor in that chair, but utterly unworthy the consideration of 
this house, or of the matured understanding of the noble lord who 
condescends to instruct it! Gracious God! We see a Pery re-ascend¬ 
ing from the tomb, and raising his awful voice to warn us against 
the surrender of our freedom, and we see that the proud and virtuous 
feelings which warmed the breast of that aged and venerable man are 
only calculated to excite the contempt of this young philosopher, who 
has been transplanted from the nursery to the cabinet to outrage the 
feelings and understanding of the country. 

But, sir, I will be schooled, and I will endeavour to argue this ques¬ 
tion as calmly and frigidly as I am desired to do; and since we are 
told that this is a measure intended for our benefit, and that it is 


48 


plunket’s speeches. 


through mere kindness to us that all these extraordinary means have 
been resorted to, I will beg to ask, how are we to be benefited ? Is 
it commercial benefit that we are to obtain ? I will not detain the 
house with a minute detail on this part of the subject. It has been 
fully discussed by able men, and it is well known that we are already 
possessed of everything material which could be desired in that re¬ 
spect. But I shall submit some obvious considerations. 

I waive the consideration, that under any union of legislatures the 
conditions as to trade between the two countries must be, either 
free ports, which would be ruinous to Ireland; or equal duties, which 
would be ruinous to Ireland; or the present duties made perpetual, 
which would be ruinous to Ireland; or that the duties must be left 
open to regulation from time to time by the united parliament, which 
would leave us at the mercy of Great Britain. I will waive the con¬ 
sideration, that the minister has not thought fit to tell us what wo 
are to get, and, what is still stronger, that no man amongst us has 
any definite idea of what we are to ask ; and I will content myself 
with asking this question—is your commerce in such a declining, des¬ 
perate state, that you are obliged to resort to irrevocable measures in 
order to retract it ? Or is it at the very moment when it is advanc¬ 
ing with rapid prosperity, beyond all example and above all hope— 
is it, I say, at such a time that you think it wise to bring your con¬ 
stitution to market, and offer it to sale, in order to obtain advantages, 
the aid of which you do not require, and of the nature of which you 
have not any definite idea. 

A word more, and 1 have done as to commerce. Supposing great 
advantages were to be obtained, and that they were specified and 
stipulated for ; what is your security that the stipulation will be ob¬ 
served ? Is it the faith of treaties ? What treaty more solemn than 
the final constitutional treaty between the two kingdoms in 1782, 
which you are now called on to violate ? Is it not a mockery to say 
that the parliament of Ireland is competent to annul itself, and to 
destroy the original compact with the people and the final compact of 
1782, and that the parliament of the empire will not be competent 
to annul any commercial regulation of the articles of Union ? And here, 
sir, I take leave of this part of the question ; indeed, it is only justice 
to government to acknowledge that they do not much rely on the 
commercial benefits to be obtained by the Union—they have been 
rather held out in the way of innocent artifice, to delude the people 
for their own good; but the real objects are different, though still 
merely for the advantage of Ireland. 

What are those other objects ? To prevent the recurrence of re- 


THE UNION. 


40 


bullion, and to put an end to domestic dissensions ? Give me leave 
to ask, sir, how was the rebellion excited ? I will not inquire into 
its remote causes; I do not wish to revive unpleasant recollections, or 
to say anything which might be considered as invidious to the govern¬ 
ment of the country ; but how was it immediately excited ? By the 
agency of a party of levellers actuated by French principles, insti- 
gited by French intrigues, and supported by the promise of French 
co-operation. This party, I hesitate not to say, was in itself con¬ 
temptible. How did it become formidable ? By operating on the 
wealthy, well-informed, and moral inhabitants of the north, and per¬ 
suading them that they had no constitution ; and by instilling palata¬ 
ble poisons into the minds of the rabble of the south; which were 
prepared to receive them by being in a state of utter ignorance and 
wretchedness. How will an Union effect those pre-disponent causes ? 
Will you conciliate the mind of the northern by caricaturing all the 
defects of the constitution, and then extinguishing it, by draining his 
wealth to supply the contributions levied by an imperial parliament, 
and by outraging all his religious and moral feelings by the means 
which you use to accomplish this abominable project; and will you 
not, by encouraging the drain of absentees, and taking away the in¬ 
fluence and example of resident gentlemen, do everything in your 
pov\er to aggravate the poverty, and to sublimate the ignorance and 
bigotry of the south ? 

Let me ask again, how was the rebellion put down ? By the zeal 
and loyalty of the gentlemen of Ireland rallying round—what ? a reed 
shaken by the winds ; a wretched apology for a minister, who neither 
knew how to give nor where to seek protection ? No! but round 
the laws and constitution and independence of the country. What 
were the affections and motives that called us into action ? To pro¬ 
tect our families, our properties, and our liberties. What were the 
antipathies by which we were excited ? Our abhorrence of French 
principles and French ambition. What was it to us that France was 
a republic ? I rather rejoiced when I saw the ancient despotism ot 
France put down. What was it to us that she dethroned her mon¬ 
arch ? I admired the virtues and wept for the sufferings of the man ; 
but as a nation it affected us not. The reason I took up arms, and 
am ready still to bear them against France, is because she intruded 
herself upon our domestic concerns—because with the rights of man 
and the love of freedom on her tongue, I see that she has the lust of 
dominion in her heart—because wherever she has placed her foot, she 
has erected her throne; and to be her friend or her ally is to be her tri¬ 
butary or her slave. 


50 


plunket’s speeches. 


Let me ask, is the present conduct of the British minister calculated 
to augment or to transfer that antipathy ? No, sir, I will be bold to 
say, that licentious and impious France, in all the unrestrained ex¬ 
cesses which anarchy and atheism have given birth to, has not com¬ 
mitted a more insidious act against her enemy than is now attempted 
by the professed champion of civilized Europe against a friend and 
an ally in the hour of her calamity and distress—at a moment when 
our country is filled with British troops—when the loyal men of Ire¬ 
land are fatigued with their exertions to put down rebellion; efforts 
in which they had succeeded before these troops arrived—whilst our 
Habeas Corpus Act is suspended—whilst trials by court martial are 
carrying on in many parts of the kingdom—whilst the people are 
taught to think that they have no right to meet or to deliberate, and 
whilst the great body of them are so palsied by their fears, and worn 
down by their exertions, that even this vital question is scarcely able 
to rouse them from their lethargy—at the moment when we are dis¬ 
tracted by domestic dissensions—dissensions artfully kept alive as 
the pretext tor our present subjugation and the instiument of our 
future thraldom ! 

Yet, sir, I thank administration for this measure. They are, with¬ 
out intending it, putting an end to our dissensions—through this 
black cloud which they have collected over us, I see the light break¬ 
ing in upon this unfortunate country. They have composed our dis¬ 
sensions—not by fomenting the embers of a lingering and subdued 
rebellion—not by hallooing the Protestant against the Catholic and 
the Catholic against the Protestant—not by committing the north 
against the south—not by inconsistent appeals to local or to party 
prejudices; no—but by the avowal of this atrocious conspiracy against 
the liberties of Ireland, they have subdued every petty and subordi¬ 
nate distinction. They have united every rank and description of 
men by the pressure of this grand and momentous subject; and I tell 
them that they will see every honest and independent man in Ireland 
rally round her constitution, and merge every other consideration in 
his opposition to this ungenerous and odious measure. For my own 
part, I will resist it to the last gasp of my existence and with the 
last drop of my blood, and when I feel the hour of my dissolution 
approaching, I will, like the father of Hannibal, take my children to 
the altar and swear them to eternal hostility against the invaders of 
their country’s freedom. 

Sir, I shall not detain you by pursuing this question through the 
topics which it so abundantly offers. I shall be proud to think my 
name may be handed down to posterity in the same roll with these (lis- 


THE UNION. 


51 


interested patriots who have successfully resisted the enemies of their 
country. Successfully I trust it will be. Iu all events, I have my 
exceeding great reward; I shall bear in my heart the conscious¬ 
ness of having done my duty, and in the hour of death I shall not 
be haunted by the reflection of having basely sold or meanly aban¬ 
doned the liberties of my native land. Can every man who gives 
his vote on the other side this night lay his hand upon his heart and 
make the same declaration ? I hope so. Jt will be well for his own 
peace. The indignation and abhorrence of his countrymen will not 
accompany him through life, and the curses of his children will not 
follow him to his grave. 

Mr. Ball and Mr. Arthur Moore, two of the most eminent of the Irish bar, 
Dr. Browne, and the Hon. Mr. Knox, members for Trinity College, Lord Cony, 
Colonel O’Donnell, Sir Edward O’Brien, Colonel Bagwell, Mr. Stewart of Kiliv- 
moon, Mr. Richard Dawson, and several of the highest of the country gentry, 
followed against the Union. The Attorney-General, Sergeant Stanley, the 
Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. William Smith, were the chief .speakers 
upon the side of government. In all, upwards of sixty members had spoken, 
when, at eleven o’clock a.m. the house divided, and Mr. Ponsonby’s amendment 
was defeated by a majority of one—which majority was obtained by the pur¬ 
chase, a few hours before, in the very house, of two members. One of them, 
Mr. Trench, of Woodlawn, afterwards Lord Ashtown, had actually spoken 
against the Union early in the debate; the other was Mr. Luke Fox, afterwards 
judge, who, having by mistake gone into the opposition lobby, would, had he 
been counted, have made the numbers equal for and against the government, in 
which case the Speaker’s casting vote would have dismissed the question. Driven 
to his wits’ end, Fox declared, upon his honour, that he had accepted the Es- 
cheatorship of Munster (the Irish Chiltem Hundreds), and accordingly had no 
right to vote. The statement was false, as subsequent reference to the record 
proved, but it sufficed for the night to give ministers the majority. 

The debate was renewed on the report of the address two days afterwards, 
and after again lasting until near noon of the following day, ministers were de¬ 
feated on Sir Laurence Parsons’ amendment to expunge the paragraph of the 
address relating to the Union, by a majority of five. Through these wintry 
nights College-green, and all the avenues of the house, were crowded with people, 
and the moment the ministers’ defeat was announced from the chair, the cheers 
of the opposition were re-echoed at every corner of the city. “ A due sense of 
decorum,” it is said, “restrained the galleries within proper bounds;” but 
Sergeant-at-arms tried in vain to still the triumphant treble of the ladies. 
Sir Jonah Barrington’s narrative of those memorable nights is very graphic, but 
not literally accurate in the ordsr which he gives of the debates. For instance, 
he states that Plunket’s speech of the 22nd was spoken on the 24th, in reply to 
Castlereagh’s seond speech, in which, abandoning all restraint, the secretary 
denounced the opposition as “ a desperate faction,” led by “ levellers and petti¬ 
foggers,” and trading on the prejudices of a “barbarous and ignorant people;” and 
be proceeds to account for the unusual vehemence and asperity of Castlereagb’a 
tone by the severe attack which Ponsonby had made upon him. Now the fact 
is, according to all the regular reports of the debates, that Castlereagh spoke 
second and Ponsonby third in the debate of the 24th, and that Ponsonby’e 


52 


plunket’s speeches. 


attack upon the ministers did not provoke, but was in answe. to Castlereagh’s 
insolent strictures upon the opposition. The speech which Castlereagh really 
tried to answer was evidently Plunket’s terrible philippic, under which he 
quailed at the time, and which, two days afterwards, he hesitates directly to 
refer to, though every sentence of his speech is evidently aimed at it. 

One withering allusion, which was said to have stung the Secretary to the 
quick, is interpreted in a memoir of Lord Plunket which appeared in the Uni¬ 
versity Magazine. The passage referred to is that in which he calls Castlereagh 
“ a green and sapless twig”:—“ This last stroke w r as felt at the time to have 
more in it than met the eye. Lady Castlereagh, who was remarkable for her 
beauty, was sitting in the gallery, and although married for some years, it was 
Lord Castlereagh’s misfortune to be childless. Plunket’s tomahawk sarcasm 
was felt to bear not merely upon his imputed political, but upon his suspected 
personal imbecility.” In the revised report the phrase is “ green and limber 
twig,” but I believe the traditional version is correct. 


THE UNION. 

January 28, 1799. 

Meantime the Union had been discussed in the British Houses of Parliament 
Sheridan heading the opposition in a speech full of Irish feeling, and of his cha¬ 
racteristic loftiness, vigour, and brilliancy. “My country,” he nobly ex¬ 
claimed, “ has claims upon me which J am not more proud to acknowledge than 
ready to liquidate to the full measure of my ability.” He was replied to with 
almost equal power by George Canning; and the debate on Irish independence 
was, in fact, a duel between the two great Irish orators, until Pitt rose and de¬ 
veloped his plan of consolidating the empire, in a long and magnificent speech, 
ending by a declaration of his intention to carry the Union at all hazards. 

Meanwhile, however, contrary to his expectation, the Irish cabinet had been 
beaten upon the address. On the 28th, Lord Castlereagh moved an adjourn¬ 
ment of the house until the 7th of February, in order to obtain advices from 
England. In the course of debate, 

Mb. Plunket condemned the declaration of the British minister, 
which was made under the influence of ignorance and delusion, as to 
what were the real sentiments of the parliament and people of Ire¬ 
land on the subject of Union. He must suppose that the British 
minister had been taught to reckon upon the certain and infallible 
success of his project for influencing the Irish parliament, and he could 
not have discovered his error in the decision of that parliament, when 
lie had the temerity to utter the speech alluded to, and of the authen¬ 
ticity of which there was pretty good evidence in a confidential paper 
of the minister (the Sun). The public mind (as the honourable mem¬ 
ber had observed) stood in need of repose after so much agitation as 
it had recently sustained upon this topic, and therefore he should not 
oppose the motion for adjournment; but if it should appear on the 
next meeting of the house, that the British minister still persisted in 


THE FLACE BILL. 


53 


his rash design, he would call upon every gentleman on this side of 
the house who had already voted against the measure, and upon any 
gentleman on the other side, who, through false delicacy, had not re- 
s sted the proposal for entertaining it, to come forward in vindication 
of the honour, the dignity, and the independence of the Irish parlia¬ 
ment and the Irish nation, and by some strong and decided declara¬ 
tion put an extinguisher upon this odious and abominable measure. 
The noble lord had intimated that the time might come when the 
parliament and the country would be glad to solicit the measure, as 
the only means of effectually securing tranquillity. He hoped the 
noble lord did not mean to insinuate that measures would be adopted 
to produce such a situation in the country as would create the neces¬ 
sity of such a solution, in order that “ what was spokeu by the pro¬ 
phets might be fulfilled.” He was not over fond to see a minister 
ruling the country, who seemed to have a taste for verifying his own 
predictions as to the necessity he foretold; and he wished to see that 
minister and his British colleague removed from office, a circumstance 
which could not much affect them, as they seemed too cool to feel for 
any event. 


THE PLACE BILL. 

May 16, 1799. 

The proceedings during the rest of the session were unimportant. In a discus¬ 
sion having reference to the number of seats vacated under the place bill, by 
which memis ministers were gradually making a Unionist majority, Plunket 
said: — 

Sir, I think that the question put to the noble lord by my honourable 
friend (Mr. Dawson), was put with such candour and moderation, 
that it merited a respectful answer, instead ot being treated, as it 
has been, with contemptuous silence. But as I find that the noble 
lord has yielded to the all-powerful and eloquent injunction of his 
learned friend the prime-serjeant (Mr. St. George Daly), 1 am jus¬ 
tified in supposing that no answer could have been given, but such as 
would confirm the house in an opinion of the justness of the obser¬ 
vations made by my honourable friend. 

But what stuff, sir, does the noble lord think this house and the coun¬ 
try made of,that they should bear with such contemptuous silence— 
with a treatment so insulting ? It has been said that the question 


54 


PLUNKETT'S SPEECHES. 


of Union ought not to have been introduced into the discussion ; but 
I must say, that the question before the house is intimately connected 
with that of a legislative Union, because the noble lord is making 
use of the prerogative of the crown as a means and instrument of 
filling the benches of this house with the supporters of his favourite 
measure. 

Baffled in this house at the time that the question of Union was 
openly brought forward, administration have now recourse to other 
modes; and every little means, artifice, and agency, is made use of 
indirectly to attain those ends which the minister wants only tho 
mockery of an artificial majority in parliament to sanction in order 
then to enforce. 

Sir, how has the measure of a Union been introduced into this 
house ? Have the inducements of office been held out to any mem¬ 
ber on this side of it ? Have the old and faithful servants of the 
crown been dismissed and their places pointed to in order to tempt 
the integrity of political virtue ? Have bribery and corruption 
been resorted to for the purpose of making that majority which tho 
unbiassed play of honest principle would never make? Sir, let the 
minister answer, for he is one of those who can best tell; but thus 
much, sir, I will say, that nor piao^, nor power, nor bribery, nor 
corruption influenced any man who voted against the minister’s mea¬ 
sure, but in the strength of honest principle was it rejected. 

The true sense of parliament has been declared; it is mani¬ 
fested to the world. The uubought sense of parliament has been 
declared; and that virtue which protected the independence of 
this house and of this kingdom, will again save it, should auy 
ministry foolishly and wickedly persist in hostility against them. I 
would then warn the noble lord how he again attempts the liberties 
of his country. 1 would warn the noble lord to profit of the expe¬ 
rience which he has already had, and not court another defeat and 
another shame. I would warn that minister who exhibits a political 
phenomenon in this house, who, contrary to every precedent after 
having failed in measures odious to his country, odious to parliament, 
and injurious to his sovereign, yet retains his place and has not 
sought refuge from public notice in private situation. I would warn 
him not to persist in his destructive course, or continue to urge a 
measure which the people of Ireland never will accept; and which, 
it forced on them, will, to use the noble lord’s own words, be the 
most rash, fatal, and unfortunate conduct, that ever has been adopted 
by any minister? 

it is meanly and insidiously attempted to impute motives of 


THE PLACE BILL. 


55 


personal interest to gentlemen at this side of the house, for the part 
they have taken on the question of the legislative Union. The odium of 
corrupt motives is attempted to be divided; but I will ask is there 
one instance—one solitary instance that can be pointed out ? 

“ Yes,” said Mr. Martin, from the other side of the house. 

Let me hear that name then. 

Here Mr. Martin cried out that he was ready. But he was stopped by a 
general exclamation of “Shame, shame!” and a cry of “proceed” addressed to 

Mr. Plunket. 

I waited, Mr. Speaker, to hear the solitary name of him who on 
this side of the house in opposing the Union had acted on any mo¬ 
tive of interest, but that which he felt in common with his country. 
1 have heard of 116 placemen and pensioners; I will not say whe¬ 
ther any of these voted for it, but I am sure if any independent gen¬ 
tleman has given his support to the measure, he has been betrayed 
into that support by circumstances, acting not on his conviction, but 
on those temporary feelings which they have excited ; and, sir, 1 
hail, as most propitious to the freedom of this country, the successes 
of his Majesty’s allies on the Continent; because, I hope, they will 
lead to a speedy peace. When fears of invasion and rebellion are re¬ 
moved, I am sure there will not be found a single independent gentle¬ 
man in this country to support the minister in this abominable measure. 

Sir, I have heard the opposers of Union, branded also with the 
name of faction. But who are they who form this faction ? It is 
they who have put down rebellion. It is these men who, even in 
the young memory of a young minister, have saved this country, and 
to whom it is owing, that the connexion between it and Great Britain 
subsists at this moment. 

Sir, it is a fact, and I speak it under correction of the noble lord 
if 1 am wrong, that he has said that none shall vacate their seats in 
this house, whose successors will not support the measure of a Union. 
And it is another fact, sir, which the minister may contradict if he 
can, that in almost every instance since the commencement of the 
present session, the escheatorship of Munster has been given to mem¬ 
bers whose only qualification for the office has been, that their suc¬ 
cessors were conditioned to vote for an Union. This condition the 
honourable colonel, whose case has given rise to the present discussion, 
would not, could not make for his successor. On the contrary, it was 
known that his intended successor was one who, like himself, loved 
the free constitution of Ireland, and therefore it was that the colonel 


56 


PLUNKET'S SPEECHES. 


was refused, and the escheatorship of Munster for the first time con* 
verted into an instrument of prerogative, injurious to parliament and 
to the people. The noble lord has professed—every man in thi^ 
house has heard him profess—that he will carry the measure of Union 
only ly the free consent of parliament and of the country ; has this 
refusal of the escheatorship of Munster been a consequence of tha' 
profession ? Have the instructions given to sheriffs not to call meet* 
ings of their counties been in conformity with that profession ? Is it 
to carry the Union by the free consent and unbiassed judgment of 
the people that all the public prints have been bought up, and either 
bribed to silence on the subject of Union, or filled with publications 
in support of it? Sir, it is very easy for a minister to clasp his hands 
and to implore the house to refrain from pledging itself on the mea¬ 
sure of a legislative Union until the sense of the country shall bo 
known. It is very easy thus to implore parliament, and set this en¬ 
treaty to notes of most pathetical cadence, but acts are the strong* st 
testimonies of intention—the strongest witnesses of motives, and the 
actions of the noble lord, loudly speaking against his professions, can¬ 
not be misunderstood by any man who is not senseless and heartless 
to the interests of his country, against which the noble lord has 
airayed himself in sincere, but I trust futile hostility. 


THE UNION 
May 18, 1799. 

Towards the close of the session, one day St. George Daly summoned up cou- 
mge, made a furious attack upon the opposition in general, and the opposition 
barristers in particular; had ventured a savage onslaught upon Bushe, and was 
proceeding to assail Flunket, when the latter, who happened to sit near him, 
caught his eye, and, as it were, shot him through with one keen glance of mer¬ 
ciless scorn. Daly faltered, stammered, and after a few awkward struggles to 
regain the flow of his speech, sat down. Plunket followed him, and these are 
his last words to the government in the session of 1799 :— 


You, Mr. Speaker, have already, on a former occasion, proved a 
Union to be inconsistent with the interests of the people of Ireland, 
and the honourable gentleman who spoke last but two has proved 
it to be inconsistent with the interests of any member of this house, 
and of every Irish gentleman of £3000 a-year; and after this 1 
trust there can be but one sentiment in execration of this abominable 
measure. Another learned gentlauum has expressed much indigna* 


THE UNION. 


57 


tion at the language used at this side of the house; and when he 
arose, I was afraid that his indignation would have hurried him be¬ 
yond the bounds of prudence ; but very seasonably he happened to 
be “so angry that he could not speak,” and thus he found a tolerably 
good chance of not being able to offend. I wish, however, that he 
had bestowed some of his indignation on the conduct which gave 
rise to the present debate; and if a conduct the most base and fla¬ 
grant could inspire terms of disapprobation, the honourable and 
learned member must certainly have recovered the use of his tongue. 
He would then have to reprobate the most shameful hypoomv— 
the most scandalous effrontery; and the warmth of his eloquence 
and the freedom of his manner would be well employed in repre¬ 
hending the conduct of a minister who had not only tlircwn away 
the substance, but the semblance of virtue. 

The honourable and learned member has asked why the house does 
not now act with that cordiality in support of government which it 
did last session, and most pathetically he asks if the spirit of loyalty 
has fled from this house. I will tell the honourable gentleman why 
government does not find that warm support in this house which it 
was wont to do. It is because the conduct of the administration has 
been such as to freeze the warm blood of loyalty—and if it should 
again dilute at the approach of public danger, it will not be owing 
to that administration, which did all it could to put down the loyalty 
of the country. Sir, the conduct of the noble lord this night, and ot 
his friends, has proved that although the administration may wish to 
do mischief, it has not talents sufficient to effect it, and I warn the 
noble lord how he proceeds in such a line of conduct. I warfi him 
how he shovTs to the people of Ireland that the question of Union is 
to be carried by force or fraud, and as far as my humble voice can 
go, I take this last opportunity of cautioning the people and ministry 
of England how they suffer themselves to be deceived by the false 
representations of the noble lord. After the boasts with which he 
ushered in the question at the commencement of the session, it was 
rejected with ignominy and disgrace: the same cant is used now. 
The people are said to be changing their minds. The members of 
this house are said to be changing their minds ; but 1 challenge the 
treasury bench to name the man w 7 ho has changed his mind. Agaiir 
and again I do remind the noble lord of the weight of responsibility 
which rests on him, if by misrepresentation he commits.the two coun¬ 
tries on this subject. On his head will be the consequences—and 
poor indeed will ihat compensation be which such a head can make 
tor the public evils which its errors may create. 


58 


plunket’s speeches. 


THE UNION. 

January 15, 1800. 

The government were busily occupied during the parliamentary recess. Lord 
Cornwallis made a tour of the country, carefully selecting places where lie could 
elicit a semblance of public opinion in favour of the Union. His progress was 
like the canvass of a potwalloping borough. Country gentlemen were promised 
titles, public functionaries promotion, the Catholics emancipation, the Protestants 
ascendancy; the s/ieteen-keeper was licensed, and the prisoner pardoned it he 
would only agree to support the Union. The Lord Lieutenant was all things to 
all men. 

The Secretary and Under-Secretary were equally active in operating upon the 
parliament. Peerages and pensions were scattered like largesse. Honourable 
members who would not sell their votes could sell their seats. Thus between actual 
purchases and changes in the representation, Castlereagh carried off forty-three 
votes from tbe opposition in the course of 1799. 

Parliament met on the 15th of January, 1800 ; and to the great surprise of 
the opposition, the Viceroy’s speech had no allusion direct or indirect to the 
Union. The address was moved by Viscount Loftus and seconded by Colonel 
Crosbie—yet no reference whatever by either speaker to the ministerial policy. 
Sir Laurence Parsons then rose; called upon the clerk to read the Lord Lieu¬ 
tenant's speech at the close of last session, in which the king’s recommendation 
of an incorporating Union was embodied; lamented that the sudden prorogation 
had then unfairly prevented the house from giving a suitable answer to his 
majesty; and said the same object was now aimed at by a studious omission of 
the subject from the opening speech. His speech ended by an amendment to 
the address, declaratory of the house’s adherence to the constitution of ’82. In 
the course of his reply, which was a malignant attack upon opposition, Castle¬ 
reagh stated that it was his intention to have moved a call of the house for that day 
fortnight, in order to consider the formal proposition of an Union. After this decla¬ 
ration the debate proceeded in regular order—the Right Hon. David Latouche, 
the Right Hon. Denis Browne, the Attorney-General, Sir John Blaquiere, and 
a few minor stars of the treasury bench on the side of government. The speak¬ 
ing of the opposition was all powerful and impassioned; and Bushe’s, Pon- 
sonby’s, and O’Donnell’s speeches were of a high order of eloquence. Plunket 
spoke late in the night. Doctor Browne, an American by birth, and member for 
Trinity College, whom Castlereagh had converted during the recess from a vio¬ 
lent anti-Unionist into a proselyte of the Castle, preceded him, and thus met 
the rough edge of his wrath:— 

Sir, I have no right to sit in judgment on the motives of the hon. 
member who has just sat down. The secrets of his heart and the 
springs of his conduct must be left to the great Searcher of hearts ; 
but by his public actions his public character is to be judged, and 
on those I will beg leave freely to comment. He has stated his rea¬ 
son for refusing to concur in the amendment of the hon. baronet to 
be, that it would pledge him irretrievably against the measure of a 
Legislative Union : how would that concurrence pledge him more 
solemuly than the amendment of the last session, proposed by my 


THE UNION. 


59 


hon. friend (Mr. G. Ponsonby), in which he then concurred ? That 
was a resolution, that we would support our free constitution as 
finally established in 1782. This is a resolution declaring that wc 
are in possession of that constitution, and that it is the wish am/ 
interest of his Majesty’s Irish subjects to remain in possession of tha* 
constitution, and in the state of union and amity with Great Britain 
wdiich we now enjoy. What has happened to change the sentiments 
ot the hon. gentleman ? I have heard that when he was elected to 
the dignified situation which he now fills, representative of the uni¬ 
versity of Dublin, he declared to his constituents that only one pos¬ 
sible event could make him harbour the idea of an Union, and that 
was, to save this country from a separation. 

Cries of “ hear, hear,” from the treasury benches. 

I am glad the new friends of the hon. gentleman have found an 
excuse for him which he did not suggest for himself; if they do not 
furnish him with an argument, they must relieve him from an anxiety 
—he was much alarmed, because he knew his opinions would be 
unpalatable to both sides of the house : but whatever sentiments they 
may have excited amongst us, they certainly have been received 
with acclamation by the minister. The hon. gentleman departs from 
the pledge which he entered into to his constituents, not because he 
apprehends any separation between the countries, but because so 
much corruption has taken place in parliament, in the course of tho 
last session, and so many bad laws have been passed, that he really 
feels the constitution not worth preserving. Will the hon. gentleman 
recollect, that in the last session he not only declared against tho 
measure, but argued with much ability that parliament was incom¬ 
petent to adopt it. What has done away their incompetence ? 
Their corruption! He then believed them incapable of sanction¬ 
ing this measure, and he now rises to pronounce a libel on the par¬ 
liament ; and on the strength of their iniquities, for which he arraigns 
them, he declares them armed with authority to dispose of the liber¬ 
ties of Ireland. Not of his country—I rejoice that he has no claim 
to the name of Irishman. He has been raised into station by the 
bounty of the country, and he shows his gratitude by conspiring for 
the destruction of her liberties. So much for the hon. gentleman— 
to the comfort of his own reflections, and to the gratitude of his con¬ 
stituents I consign him. But whilst I express an honest indignation 
against those who have left our cause, and whilst I turn back to 
shed a tear of regret over the tomb of an honourable and honest man 
who is now no more (I mean Colonel O’Donnell, the late member 


CO 


plunket’s speeches. 


for Donegal), I must congratulate the relations of that gallant man 
that a phoenix has risen from his ashes—I must congratulate the 
country on that splendid blaze of eloquence with which his successor 
has this night delighted and illuminated the house. 

Sir, I feel no ordinary sensation on this question being again in* 
troduced to the consideration of parliament. It was ushered into 
the last parliament with the same boyish boasting which now accom¬ 
panies it, and rejected with the same contumely which ultimately 
awaits it. Without any change in the circumstances of the country, 
without the production of any new argument, the same men who 
fled like detected thieves at the close of the last session, and who in 
the precipitance of their flight stumbled over and overturned all pub¬ 
lic decency aud parliamentary decorum, now exhibit themselves to 
challenge the national observation, and to brand with the name of 
faction every man who has honesty aud courage to spurn their de¬ 
grading purposes. What change has taken place ? Has the mea¬ 
sure changed its nature, or the minister his objects, or the countries 
their relations ? No, you shall know the changes which have taken 
place—I will unmask the men who have dared to come into the 
midst of parliament and people to pamper their liberties by sordid 
bribery and to subdue their spirits by lawless force, and if I cannot 
excite the feelings of honour or virtue in their hearts I will call the 
blooming blush of shame into their cheeks. 

You are told with puny sophistry that you ought at least to dis¬ 
cuss the question. What is meant by this ? That you should dis¬ 
cuss the principle ? You have already done so; no principle ever 
underwent a more ample discussion in parliament, and after examin¬ 
ing it for two entire days in all its relations, and after supposing all 
the details the most favourable which possibly could be offered to 
Ireland, the principle was rejected by a majority not only free from 
any influence, but resisting every influence. If by discussion is 
meant that we should discuss the detail without examining the prin¬ 
ciple, I utterly refuse it. We now stand on the high ground of 
national independence, secured by solemn compact; and we aro 
called on to declare our readiness to surrender that independence 
and relinquish that compact, for the purpose of treating about we 
know not what possible advantages, and this is called discussion. 
In answer to this demand, I say, first, you have not stated any one 
definite advantage which Ireland can gain, or evil which she can 
avoid, to induce her to relinquish guaranteed independence. Tue 
measure has now been agitated above a year, and we have not to 
thii hour heard stated in definite terms, such as a plain understand- 


THE UNION. 


G1 


ioi? can comprehend, any one specific advantage which we are to 
gain, or any one evil which we are to escape, by its adoption. We 
have heard a deal of lofty language—increased resources and conso¬ 
lidated strength—wealth and morals of England imported—present 
benefits from England secured—possible evils deprecated—corrup¬ 
tion of our own parliament destroyed—to be made partakers with 
the most dignified assembly in the world—danger of separation to 
be avoided—and political and religious differences closed for ever. 
This all sounds magnificently; but analyse it, and where a definite 
meaning can be extracted, no man pretends to say how an Union 
can forward the thing meant. 

Again, I will not admit the principle, because it is a barter of 
liberty for money, even supposing your advantages as real as they 
are visionary. The nation which enters into such a traffic is besot¬ 
ted. Freedom is the parent of wealth, and it is an act of parricide 
to sacrifice the constitution which generates and nourishes your com¬ 
merce for the supposed improvement of that commerce. This is, 
indeed, under all its circumstances, the most extravagant demand 
ever made by one nation from another. Ireland, a happy little 
island, with a population of between four and five millions of people 
—hardy, gallant, and enthusiastic—possessed of all the means of 
civilization—agriculture and commerce well pursued aud understood 
—laws well arranged and administered—a constitution fully recog¬ 
nised and established—her revenues, her trade, her manufactures 
thriving beyond the hope or example of any other country of her 
extent, within these few years advancing with a rapidity astonishing 
even to herself; not complaining of her deficiency in any of these 
respects, but enjoying and acknowledging her prosperity—is called on 
to surrender them all, to the control of whom ? To a great and 
powerful continent, to which nature intended her as an appendage ? 
To a mighty people, totally exceeding her in all calculation of terri¬ 
tory and population ? No, but to another happy little island placed 
beside her in the bosom of the Atlantic, of little more than double 
her territory and population, and possessing resources not nearly so 
superior to her wants; and this, too, an island which has grown 
great, and prosperous, and happy by the very same advantages which 
Ireland enjoys—a free and independent constitution, and the pro¬ 
tection of a domestic, superintendent parliament. The wealth, and 
power, aud dignity of Great Britain (of which no man rejoices more sin¬ 
cerely than I do) are the most irresistible arguments against an Union, 

A little clod of earth, by the enjoyment of freedom, has generated 
strength, and wealth, and majesty. She has reared her head above 


62 


PLUNKET S SPEECHES. 


the waters, and has dictated to the unwieldy, lethargic despotisms, 
and to the unripened, fertile dependencies of Europe. And does she 
therefore call upon Ireland to cast from her her constitution, and to 
resign the same never*failing means to the same ends? No. I 
must take leave to consider the example of Britain more persuasive 
and more disinterested than her advice. Further, we are called on 
by this sister island not to connect ourselves in alliance with her ; 
we have already done so in the most indissoluble way ; the crown 
of Ireland necessarily annexed to the crown of England, and the 
responsibility of the British minister as a pledge for their continu¬ 
ance ; not like Scotland, where the crowns were accidentally united 
in the person of the reigning monarch, and where the parliament 
had proceeded to sever that solitary bond of connexion; not like 
Scotland, where a Jacobite parliament had proposed to appoint a 
king not only different from the king of England, but actually 
claiming title to the English throne against the lawful monarch ; not 
like Scotland, thus put into a state of war with England, with her 
shores blockaded, and her trade interdicted ; but with full and per¬ 
fect alliance, founded on unity of executive, unity of interest, and 
similarity of constitution ; and all of them not only uninvaded by, 
but uniformly strengthened and secured by, the parliament of Ire¬ 
land. 

Again, sir, I will not admit the principle of Union, because we 
are not only called on to abandon our tried prosperity and the free 
constitution which gave birth to it, and without any necessity for so 
doing, or any specific advantage to be derived; but we are called on 
to do so on the faith of compact, and by the very persons who, in 
making the demand, violate the most solemn of all possible com¬ 
pacts, I mean that of 1782. The minister acts consistently in 
arraigning that settlement. It is at variance with all his plans, and 
in contradiction to all his sentiments. That settlement acknowledged 
the independence of the Irish parliament on this sound principle, 
“That the two countries were united by sameness of interest and 
similarity of constitution ; that the strength and security of the one 
mutually affected the other; that they stand and fall together.” 
You now avow to us that we have no sameness of interest; that we 
never had and never can have the British constitution; that there 
are no principles of union in our connexion, that the elements of hos¬ 
tility are essentially intermixed with it; that our weakness is your 
strength ; that our subjugation is your safety; and that you cannot 
stand unless we fall, and are trampled on. Consistently, therefore, 
do you arraign that settlement, and candidly do you tell us that it 


THE UNION. 


63 


wa9 QO compact, but a delusion; that on our part it was an arrogant 
claim, taking advantage of the weakness and distress of Great Bri¬ 
tain, and that on your part it was a political finesse, humouring our 
childish insolence, yielding to our accidental strength, and that you 
will lvsuine in the hour of force what you granted iu the hour of 
feebleness. 

Act your part in its full extent—resume it; but do not resort to 
the mockery of calling on us to relinquish what you tell us we have 
no right to retain. Do not insult us by offering compacts, whet you 
avow that no compact can bind. Do not hold out to us the taunting 
pledge of faith and sincerity, when you boast of your total want of 
faith and sincerity in the compact of 1782. It is not merely by 
your licensed scribblers that the fraud of 1782 has been fiated. 
Posterity will scarcely believe the page of history, when they see it 
recorded by the British minister. In 1782 you pledged the royal 
word, you pledged the solemn honour of the parliaments of both 
countries. You called on Almighty God to witness the truth and sin¬ 
cerity of that final adjustment; and you now call on us, by the pledge 
of the same royal faith, by the authority ot the same parliament, 
and under the same religious sanction, to enter into a new treaty 
whose basis must be the violation of the former one. 

Who is to guarantee it ? If by your own authority you claim a 
right to violate a compact made amongst equals, and you call on us 
not to contract with, but to surrender to the same persons who have 
overturned it; if that treaty is not binding on you whilst we are 
ooth alive and strong and able to support our mutual pretensions, 
will this treaty of 1800 be binding when we are extinct by the terms 
ot it, and you survive alone to expound and to enforce it—call 
down whatever sanction of king or parliament or God on your new 
contract, and how will it be treated twenty years hence, in an impe¬ 
rial parliament ? If they wish to extinguish your 100 representatives 
and make you a province in form as well as substance, may they not 
then with some colour say, “ we told you in 1800 that you had no 
constitution: your pretended compact you then gave up, we admit¬ 
ted you to our parliament by courtesy and for a time, and we now at 
our pleasure dismiss you from it/’ Would that act of 1820 be so 
shameless a violation of the articles of 1800 as these anicles cf 
1800 would be of the compact of 1782. 

1 say, therefore, I will not quit the vantage ground of freedom and 
compact to admit the principle of an Union. 

But it is said we press the discussion—that no mention of Union 
has been made in the speech, and that it is unbecoming in us to urgt 


64 


plunket’s speeches 


the rejection of a measure which has not been announced. Sir, this 
is very idle talk. If gentlemen do not feel a due respect for them¬ 
selves, they should at least have some for the representative <> <c 
. majesty. Is it not more than ludicrous that the lord lieutenant should 
at the close oi the last session propose the measure of Union, when par¬ 
liament could not answer him, and that he should be utterly silent 
on it at the commencement of this session, when parliament is ready 
to answer him ? You well know the reason of this inconsistency. 
You wait to have your troops recruited. You do something more 
than conjecture how those members mean to vote whose seats havo 
been vacated since the last session ot parliament. This trick is of a 
piece w r ith the rest, and the conduct of the measure from first to iast 
is the true expositor of its merits. May I be indulged in taking a 
very short review of it ? 

It is admitted by the minister that the alleged necessity of Uniou 
flows merely from the constitution of 1782. From Heniy the 
Second until that time Great Britain never suggested the idea. It 
then was suggested not as a measure to be gramed on the constitu¬ 
tion of 1782, but as a substitute for it. It was found that no man 
could be hardy enough to utter the sentiment in this country, and it 
was abandoned. Y r ou thereupon acknowledged our independent con¬ 
stitution, and said that all grounds of constitutional disagreement 
between the two countries were thereby for ever precluded; and yet 
you now tell us that thereby, and thereby only, they were created. 
In 1785 commercial differences arose ; there were long negociations 
between the two countries, yet the name of Union never hinted au 
They broke off; still Union never hinted at. At a later period they 
are renewed and settled, and still Union never hinted at; in 1789 
the question of regency arose, and Union never hinted at. And it 
is worthy of remark, that at those latter periods both countries were 
in profound peace, foreign and domestic, and nothing existed to pre¬ 
vent the fair sense of every man in this kingdom, in or out of parlia¬ 
ment, being had upon the subject. At last, in 1795, we see the 
measure peeping out of the British cabinet, and the propriety of its 
adoption mentioned as the reason for dashing the hope which had been 
held out to the Catholic. The admission of the Catholic, says Lord 
Carlisle, would deprive the empire of advantages greater than any 
which sue has derived since the revolution, at least since the Union! 
Aud it is to be observed, that the Catholic claim is rejected in order 
to enable the minister to effect Union, and not UnioD adopted for 
the purpose of rejecting the claim. Still, however, the scheme L not 


THE UNTON. 


65 


avowed to parliament or people, we only discover it by the accidental 
disclosure of a ministerial correspondence. 

During the administration of Lord Camden, of whom I wish to 
speak with every degree of personal respect, a system was adopted 
certainly not calculated to soften religious animosities, or to endear 
the parliament to the Irish people. I do not mean to comment on 
the propriety of those measures, but when I reflect that the British 
minister had hatched the plan of Union before they were adopted, 
and when I see the supposed alienation of people from parliament in 
consequence of those measures, and the religious and political ani¬ 
mosities excited by them used as the instruments for effecting that 
plan, I cannot divest my mind of the suspicion that the plan was 
adopted to effect the purpose. During the administration of that 
nobleman the most extensive, deep, well-planned, and wicked con¬ 
spiracy that ever nation escaped from was hatched, matured, and 
prepared to burst upon the country. It was detected in all its parts, 
and published in all its details, and the energies of the nation called 
out to resist it, by the vigilance, information, and resources of a resi¬ 
lient, superintending Irish parliament. If this wicked plot of Union 
had then been effected, and our parliament at Westminster, every 
vestige of British connexion would have been swept off the face of 
the land. Well, sir, this rebellion burst on the public with hideous 
and unexampled atrocity, and it was substantially put down by the 
resident, loyal men of Ireland ; by native valour and native honour, 
before any reinforcement had arrived from Great Britain; and it is 
because the connexion has been preserved by the wisdom of the resi¬ 
dent parliament, and by the valour and loyalty of the resident gen¬ 
tlemen of Ireland, that, you now propose to banish both. In the 
summer of 1798 Lord Cornwallis arrived in this country, a man of 
high character and great military fame, not for the purpose of repelling 
invasion, not for the purpose of subduing rebellion, but to apply all 
his character and all his powers to the achievement of a political pur¬ 
pose. I will not dwell on the glories of his military campaign; I 
mean him no personal disrespect ; but this I must observe, that whilst 
the military lord lieutenant was in the field, with an army of 60,000 
nen to support him, history will have it to record that we are in¬ 
debted to a gallant Irishman (Mr. Vereker), at the head of about 
bOO native troops, for having withstood the enemy, and prevented' 
the capital of Ireland from being entered in triumph by a body of 
not one thousand Frenchmen. 

I do not wish to inquire too minutely why the embers of an extin¬ 
guished rebellion have been so long suffered to exist; I do not wish 


plunket’s speeches. 


66 

to derogate from the praise to which the noble lord may be entitled 
for his clemency. Its very excesses, if they do claim praise, are at 
least entitled to indulgence; but when I see that all the rays of 
mercy and forbearance are reserved to gild the brow of the viceroy, 
and that all the odium of harshness and severity is flung upon the 
parliament; when I see the clemency of the chief governor throwing 
its mantle over the midnight murderer; when I see it holding parley 
with the armed rebel in the field; and when I see the task of mak¬ 
ing war against the victim in his grave and the infant in the crad e 
thrown by the same government upon the parliament, I cannot avoid 
suspecting that there is something more than the mere milk of human 
kindness in the forbearance on |)ie one part, and something more 
than mere political caution in the severities of the other. But, sir, 
this rebellion was subdued by the parliament and people of Ireland ; 
and before the country had a breathing time, before the loyalist had 
time to rest from his labours; before the traitor had received his pun¬ 
ishment. or his pardon; whilst we were all stunned by the stupendous 
events which had scarcely passed; whilst something little short .f 
horror for a’l political projects had seized the mind of every man ; 
whilst the ground was yet smoking with the blood of an O’Neill and 
ot a Mountjoy, the wicked conspiracy was announced which was to 
rob their country of its liberties and their minor children of their 
birthright. With a suspended Habeas Corpus Act, with military 
tribunals in every county, the overwhelming and irretrievable mea¬ 
sure of Uuion was announced for the free, enlightened, and calm dis¬ 
cussion of an Irish parliament, and with all these engines of terror 
still suspended over their heads it is again submitted to them. 

How was it brought forward ? A hireling of the Castle employed 
to traduce parliament and insult the country ; hopes held out to the 
Catholic that he should be established if he adopted; threats to the 
Protestant that he should be annihilated if he rejected ; the constitu¬ 
tion of 1782 openly treated as a system of force on our part and of 
compulsion on the part of England, and the right to resume it openly 
asserted. Whilst this impolitic insult was circulated through the 
country by the authority ot government, the lord lieutenant sent to 
some of the principal gentlemen, merely to request their attention i o 
the subject, but at the same time to assure them that he did not wisn 
it to be carried unless by the uninfluenced opinion of the wealth and 
s“nse and loyalty of the country. What was the first parliamentary 
step ? The chancellor of the exchequer and prime sergeant turned 
out of office because they ventured to declare an opinion against it. 
Tne measure was brought forward without hinting at the opinion ol 


THE UNION. 


67 


the people, but, on the contrary, asserting the fall competence of par¬ 
liament to decide without them. An insidious speech prepared by 
She minister and delivered from the throne, affecting to advise merely 
general strengthening of the empire, but which the secretary was com¬ 
pelled to avow meant Union, and Union only. What followed? 
The measure was justified by the noble secretary on account of the 
poverty and wretchedness of Ireland, and the necessity of separation 
flowing from the constitution of 1782. The principle of influence 
which had been exerted was justified, and the intention fairly avowed 
of following it up to the full extent of prerogative. The question 
was discussed for two days in all its relations, the principle examined 
and the details supposed the most favourable which possibly could be 
granted to Ireland, and after that full discussion, in despite of the 
calamities and terrors of the times, in despite of the surprise with 
which it was brought on, in despite of the influence exercised and 
avowed, the preliminary principle was rejected by a majority not 
only not acting under any corrupt influence, but against all corrupt 
influence. 

I need not remind you of the transport with which that determi¬ 
nation was received in every corner of the kingdom. Whatever 
might have been the former errors of parliament, they were lost in 
the virtue and splendor of that event. What, sir, was the conse¬ 
quence? In opposition to the declared sense of parliament and 
known wishes of the people, you were told, by one whom I may, 
without offence, call, if not a boy, at least a very young man, “ that 
you were all in error; that you should hereafter implore as a bless¬ 
ing what you now deprecated as a curse ; and that he would never 
lose sight of the measure, but would govern you for the purpose.” 
I ask, was such language or conduct ever ventured on by a defeated 
minister; or would this insolence have been dared, if you had been 
considered as a free parliament or a free people. What was the 
conduct of Great Britain ? Exactly corresponding in contemptuous - 
uess with that of their minister here. On the very day of the defeat 
in the Irish parliament, the minister of England, confiding in the dark 
promises of his partizans here, and taking our acquiescence to the 
surrender of our constitution as a thing of course, announces the mea ¬ 
sure to the British parliament, and gains their ready assent—no re¬ 
luctance on their part, as when the free trade was obtained—nc 
reluctance as on the repeal of 6th of George, or on the renunciation, 
or on the Commercial Propositions, which we thought so bad that 
we rejected them, although they acceded to them with regret, as much 
too good for us. No, sir, knowing that Union would make them 


cs 


plunket’s speeches. 


masters, their ready acquiescence is procured. Well! by the teme¬ 
rity aud boasting of a very young man, the parliament of one country 
is committed against the other. What is done by the minister when 
the disappointment is announced ? Is he overwhelmed with shame ? 
Anxious to extricate himself? No ; he proceeds with as much com¬ 
posure as if he had our complete assent; he treats us like silly, pas¬ 
sionate children, and goes on to adjust the terms. He makes a lofty, 
turgid speech, talks in high-sounding general terms of increased re¬ 
sources and consolidated strength ; a couple of powdered lacquies of 
epithets waiting upon every substantive. Whatever we may think 
of the wisdom or justness of the oration, we cannot but admire its 
fashion and its pomp; and after all this absurd jargon, which has 
been so often exposed, he proceeds to inform the British house, that 
lie is satisfied an enlightened majority must proceed to adopt the 
measure; and after the great leviathan has concluded his tumblings, 
a young wdiale puts up his nostrils, and spurts his blubber on this 
country, and tells a British senate, that when he came over to Ire¬ 
land to put down the rebellion he discovered the true character of 
the country, and that it is best summed up by Swift’s verses on the 
town of Carlow, “ High church and low steeple, poor town and proud 
peopleand all this to the great admiration of the wisest and most 
liberal assembly in the world. Give me leave, sir, here to advert to 
the declaration made in the House of Lords on the same subject by my 
Lord Auckland, who had been an Irish secretary in the administra¬ 
tion of Lord Carlisle, and he declares, “ that he knows enough of 
the theatre of action, and of the principal actors on that theatre, to 
do them the justice to believe, that their resistance will give way to 
the commanding voice of reason aud of truth.” Whoever remembers 
the administration of that noble lord in this country, when he was 
Mr. Eden, would be able to comprehend the full force and delicacy 
of the strain of irony in which he proves the candour and docility of 
the Irish parliament. 

On such grounds as these, in defiance of our proceedings, the crown 
is addressed, aud the father of his people is made to say, that he will 
take the first opportunity of laying before bis Irish parliament the 
same principle in the detail which they had already rejected in the 
general. 

(I [ere it was said from the treasury bench, that his Majesty’s expression was not 
“ the first,” but a proper opportunity. J 

I thank the noble lord for the correction ; we shall see presently 
in what the propriety of the opportunity consisted. Has the royal 


THE UNION. 


69 


word been kept in that respect by the minister ? The resolution 
passed early in the session. The Irish parliament was adjourned at 
the request of the noble lord, for the express purpose of our being 
apprized of the result of the English deliberations. And yet, during 
the whole course of the session not a word is said upon the subject. 
The proper opportunity had not arrived; but the noble lord was 
certainly not remiss in his efforts to create that opportunity; he pro¬ 
ceeded to accomplish the predictions of the British minister and of 
himself; to endeavour to corrupt and pack the parliament, so that an 
enlightened majority should pass the measure, and so to govern the 
country, that they should implore Union, or anything rather than 
remain as they were ; how effectual the latter part of his plan has 
been you perceive, from the declaration of the hon. member (Doctor 
Browne), who declares that he is made a proselyte to the measure by 
the abominable proceedings of the minister and the parliament. The 
minister in the meantime proceeded to execute his threats of dis¬ 
mission from office. Every man, whether in a confidential situation 
or not, who had dared to express his free opinion was dismissed. 
When men would not be base enough openly to apostatize—their 
resignation was purchased—the place bill, which had been enacted to pre¬ 
serve the liberties of the subject, converted into an instrument to op¬ 
press them ; and no man suffered to vacate his seat, unless he would 
stipulate an Unionist for his successor. The same lord lieutenant who 

first had declared his intention to submit the question to the unin¬ 
fluenced sense of the country, frankly avowed his determination to 
abuse the prerogative for this scandalous purpose ; and the noble lord 
who had declared, in full parliament, that he never would press the 
measure, even with a majority, against the free sense of parliament, 
heard himself publicly branded with his shameful departure from that 
promise, in the case of Colonel Cole, without having the hardihood to 
deny it! The British minister thought this last act too indecent 
even for the meridian of Ireland, and the parliament was the next day 
prorogued. 

The public will not easily forget that memorable day, when the 
usher of the black rod was stationed within the doors of the com¬ 
mons, to watch the instant at which the house assembled. The pub¬ 
lic will not easily forget the indecent precipitation with which the 
message from the throne was delivered, without allowing time even 
for the ordinary vote of thanks to you, sir, for your conduct in that 
chair. They will not easily forget, not the absence, but the dis¬ 
graceful flight of the minister of the country, to avoid the exposure 
and the punishment of guilt. When the functions of this house 


70 


plunket’s speeches. 


were thus superseded, his excellency, for the first time, thought pro¬ 
per to inform them of the resolutions of the British parliament; and 
he was further pleased to insinuate, that it would be a great satisfac¬ 
tion to him in his old age, if we would be so good as to adopt this 
measure of an Incorporating Union. 

I must, for one, beg to be excused from making quite so great a 
sacrifice, from mere personal civility, to any lord lieutenant, how¬ 
ever respectable he may be. The independence of a nation, I must 
own, does not appear to me to be exactly that kind of bagatelle 
which is to be offered by way of compliment, either to the youth ot 
the noble lord who honours us by his presence in this house; or to 
the old age of the noble marquis, who occasionally sheds his setting 
lustre over the other. To the first, I am disposed to say, in the words 
of Waller— 


“ I pray thee, gentle boy, 

“ Press me no more for that slight toy ■” 

and to the latter I might apply the language of Lady Constance— 

“ That’s a good child—go to its grandam—give grandam kingdom—and its 
grandam will give it a plumb, a cherry, and a fig—there’s a good grandam.” 

I hope, therefore, sir, I shall not be thought impolite if I decline the 
offer of the constitution of Ireland, either as a garland to adorn the 
youthful brow of the secretary, or to be suspended over the pillow 
of the viceroy. 

Thus ended that never-to-be-forgotten session. What has since 
been done ? During the whole interval between, the sessions the 
same barefaced system of parliamentary corruption has been pursued. 
Dismissals, promotions, threats, promises. In despite of all this, 
the minister feared he could not succeed in parliament; and he af 
fected to appeal to what he had before despised—the sentiment of 
the people. When he was confident of a majority, the people were 
to be heard only through the constitutional medium of then’ repre¬ 
sentatives. When he was driven out of parliament, the sense of the 
people became everything. Bribes were promised to the Catholic 
clergy—bribes were promised to the Presbyterian clergy—I trust 
they have been generally spumed with the contempt they merited. 
The noble lord understands but badly the genius of the religion in 
which he was educated. You held out hopes to the Catholic body, 
which were never intended to be gratified ; regardless of the disap¬ 
pointment, and indignation, and eventual rebellion, which you might 
kindle—regardless of everything, provided the present paltry little 


THE UNION. 


71 


object were obtained. In the same breath yon held out professions 
to the Protestant, equally delusive: and having thus prepared the 
way, the representative of majesty sets out on his mission, to court 
his sovereign, the majesty of the people. 

It is painful to dwell on that disgraceful expedition—no place too 
obscure to be visited—no rank too low to be courted—no threat too 
vile to be employed—the counties not sought to be legally con¬ 
vened by their sheriffs—no attempt to collect the unbiassed suffrage 
of the intelligent and independent part of the community—public 
addresses sought for from petty villages—and private signatures 
smuggled from public counties. And how procured ? By the m- 
iluence of absentee landlords ; not over the affections, but over the 
terrors, of their tenantry. By griping agents and revenue officers. 
And after all this mummery had been exhausted ; after the lustre of 
royalty had been tarnished by this vulgar intercourse with the lowest 
of the rabble; after every spot had been selected where a paltry 
address could be procured, and every place avoided where a manly 
sentiment could be encountered; after abusing the names of the dead, 
and forging the signatures of the living; after polling the inhabitants 
of the goal, and calling out against the parliament the suffrages of 
those who dare not come in to sign them till they had got their protec¬ 
tion in their pocket; after employing the revenue officer to threaten the 
publican, that he should be marked as a victim, and the agent to 
terrify the shivering tenant with the prospect of his turf-bog being 
withheld, if he did not sign your addresses; after employing your 
military commanders, the uncontrolled arbiters of life and death, to 
hunt the rabble against the constituted authorities; after squeezing 
the lowest dregs of a population of near five millions—you obtained 
about five thousand signatures, three-fourths of whom affixed their 
names in surprise, terror, or total ignorance of the subject: and after 
all this canvass of the people, and after all this corruption wasted on 
the parliament, and after all your boasting that you must carry the 
measure by a triumphant majority, you do not dare to announce the 
subject in the speech from the throne. 

You talk of respect for our gracious sovereign. I ask, what can 
be a more gross disrespect than this tampering with the royal name 
—pledged to the English parliament to bring the measure before us 
at a proper opportunity—holding it out to us at the close of the 
last session, and not daring to hint it at the beginning of this. Is 
it not notorious why you do not bring forward the measure now ? 
Because the fruits of your corruption have not yet blossomed ; because 
you did not dare to hazard a debate last session, in order to fill up 


72 


plunket’s speeches. 


the vacancies which the places bestowed by you, avowedly for this 
question, had occasioned ; and because you have employed the inter¬ 
val in the same sordid traffic; and because you have a band of dis¬ 
interested patriots waiting to come in and complete the enlightened 
majority who are to vote away the liberties of Ireland. 

Will you dare to act on a majority so obtained ? Fatal will be your 
councils, and disastrous your fate, if you resolve to do so. You have 
adopted the extremes of the despot and the revolutionist; you have 
invoked the loyal people and parliament of Ireland, who were not 
calliug on you; you have essayed every means to corrupt that par¬ 
liament, if you could, to sell their country; you have exhausted the 
whole patronage of the crown in execution of that system; and to 
crown all, you openly avow, and it is notoriously a part of your plan, 
that the constitution of Ireland is to be purchased for a stipulated 
sum. I state a fact, for which, if untrue, I deserve serious reprehen¬ 
sion; I state it as a fact, that you cannot dare to deny, that £15,000 
a piece is to be given to certain individuals, as the price for their 
surrendering—what ? Their property ? No ; but the rights of re¬ 
presentation of the people of Ireland; and you will then proceed in 
this, or in any imperial parliament, to lay taxes on the wretched na¬ 
tives of this land to pay the purchase of their own slavery. It was 
in the last stage of vice and decrepitude that the Roman purple was 
set up for sale, and the sceptre of the world transferred for a stipu¬ 
lated price; but even then the horde of slaves who were to be ruled 
would not have endured that their country itself should have been en¬ 
slaved to another nation. 

Do not persuade yourselves that a young, gallant, hardy, enthusi¬ 
astic people like the Irish are to be enslaved by means so vile, or 
will submit to injuries so palpable and galling. From those acts ot 
despotism you plunge into the phrenzy of revolution, at a time when 
political madness has desolated the face of the world; when all estab¬ 
lishment is staggering under the drunkenness of theory ; when in this 
country, which it is said has been peculiarly visited by the pestilence, 
even the projects, which the noble lord may recollect to have been 
entertained by the Northern Whig Club, have been necessarily sus¬ 
pended, if not abandoned; when you have found it necessary to 
enact temporary laws, taking away almost every one of the ordinary 
privileges of the subject of a free constitution; with the trial by jury 
superseded, and the whole country subject to martial law—a law, by 
which the liberty and life of every man rest merely on the security 
of military discretion; a law which you have not yet ventured to re¬ 
peal, and the necessity of whose continuance is strangely hinted in 


THE UNION. 


73 


the speech from the throne; with a bloody rebellion only extinguished, 
and a formidable invasion only escaped ; you call on this distracted 
country to unroof itself of its constitution, and having been refuted 
by the wisdom and virtue of parliament, you desire the rabble of 
every description to array themselves against the constituted authori¬ 
ties, and to put down the parliament, because parliament would not 
put down the constitution. 

Are the people of Ireland cured of their frenzy ? Take off their 
fetters—restore the Habeas Corpus—give back the trial by jury— 
repeal the martial law bill—let the ordinary laws resume their course. 
.Are they maniacs, and are they manacled?—do not erect them into 
law-givers and judges. Do not insult them by a mock appeal—do 
not at the same time trample on them as slaves and worship them 
as masters. These, sir, are not the times for theory—let us cling to 
experience ; it tells us we can exist with a common king and separate 
parliaments, because we have done so for ages; and therefore, when 
I see a modern Solon taking to pieces the different parts of our con¬ 
stitution, like those o f a watch, and asking, “If you have a com¬ 
mon king, would it not be better, a priori , to have a common par¬ 
liament,” I laugh at his visions. Will he answer to me, that if 
the people are called on to pull down the parliamentary part of their 
c nstitution, they will stop precisely there ? 

I ask him further, what is there in his theory of equal value to the 
proof from experience, that a common king and separate parliament 
produce a good practical system of liberty and connexion. The tw o 
parliaments may clash ! So in Great Britain may king and parlia¬ 
ment ; but we see they never do so injuriously. There are principles 
of repulsion! Yes; but there are principles of attraction, and from 
tliese the enlightened statesman extracts the principle by which the 
countries are to be harmoniously governed. As soon would I listen 
to the shallow observer of nature, who should say there is a centri- 
ugal force impressed on our globe, and, therefore, lest we should be 
nrried into the void of space, we ought to rush into the centre to 
e consumed there. No; I say to this rash arraigner of the dispen¬ 
sations of the Almighty, there are impulses from whose wholesome 
opposition eternal wisdom has declared the law by which we revolve 
in our proper sphere, and at our proper distance. So I say to the 
political visionary, from the opposite forces which you object to, I see 
the wholesome law of imperial connexion derived—I see the two 
countries preserving their due distance from each other, generating 
and imparting heat, and light, and life, and health, and vigour, 
and I will abide by the wisdom and experience of the ages which 


74 


PLUNKET S SPEECHES. 


are past, in preference to the speculations of any modern philo¬ 
sopher. 

Sir, I warn the ministers of this country against persevering in 
their present system. Let them not proceed to offer violence to the 
settled principles or to shake the settled loyalty of the country. Let 
them not persist in the wicked and desperate doctrine which places 
British connexion in contradiction to Irish freedom. I revere them 
both—it has been the habit of my life to do so. For the present 
constitution I am ready to make any sacrifice. I have proved it. 
For British connexion I am ready to lay down my life. My actions 
have proved it. Why have I done so ? Because I consider that 
connexion essential to the freedom of Ireland. Do not, therefore, 
tear asunder to oppose to each other these principles which are iden¬ 
tified in the minds of loyal Irishmen. For me, I do not hesitate to 
declare, that if the madness of the revolutionist should tell me you 
must sacrifice British connexion, I would adhere to that connexion 
in preference to the independence of my country. But I have as 
little hesitation in saying, that if the wanton ambition of a minister 
should assault the freedom of Ireland and compel me to the alterna¬ 
tive, I would fling the connexion to the winds, and I would clasp the 
independence of my country to my heart. I trust the virtue and 
wisdom of the Irish parliament and people will prevent that dreadful 
alternative from arising. If it should come, be the guilt of it on the 
heads of those who make it necessary. 

On the 16th of May, 1799, Plunket had commented upon the case of Colonel 
Cole, to which he again adverts in this speech. A word may be useful to ex¬ 
plain both allusions. Castlereagh had already secured a number of votes in the 
course of 1799 by inducing members, who were not shameless enough them¬ 
selves to support the Union, to vacate their seats and allow Castle candidates to 
be returned. The regular compensation in a case of this kind was £15,000. 
But in the course of the year he discovered another way of weakening the oppo¬ 
sition, which, however, could only be practised upon a small scale. It was to 
refuse the escheatorship to any of the opposition who might desire to retire, or 
be compelled for private reasons to resign their seats, unless on the condition of 
allowing an Unionist to be returned in their stead. Colonel Cole, going on 
ioreign service, wanted to withdraw from the representation of Enniskillen. A 
member of opposition was certain to be elected in his place. But the escheator¬ 
ship was refused, and thereby the seat kept in suspension until the following 
year. 

In the passage alluding to the Lord Lieutenant’s campaign against Humbert, 
Plunket refers to Colonel Yereker, a member of the opposition, and admitted by 
the French general to be the only British oflicer he had found who was fit to 
command fifty men. With two hundred of the Limerick militia, half a troop 
of dragoons, and two curricle guns, he had given the advance guard of the 
French such a check at Collooney as entirely diverted Humbert’s line of advance. 


THE UNION. 


75 


In the reference to the English debates, beside Pitt’s speech, those of Mr. 
Pelham, chief secretary under Lord Camden, and of Mr. Eden, chief secretary 
under Lord Carlisle, are alluded to. I suppose the reference to Castlereagh’s 
early Presbyterian breeding, his sympathies with the extreme reform doctrines 
ol the Northern Whig Club (and even, it was said, of the first United Irish 
societies—for he began political life as a violent reformer), need no particular ex*, 
planation. 

St. George Daly followed Plunket in a virulent harangue, which surprised the 
house by its audacity and volubility. Bushe replied tartly to a reference which 
it contained to him. Barrington and Sir John Macartney spoke in succession 
against ministers, and (Bully) Egan was rising, when along College-green and 
through the courts and corridors of the house such another thunder of popular 
enthusiasm was heard as had announced, a year before, the triumph of the oppo¬ 
sition to the city. At last the doors opened, and, leaning upon Arthur Moore 
and George Ponsonby, the opposition and the galleries recognised, with tears 
and cheers, the thin gray hairs, the stooped and shattered body, the prophet 
eyes and Titan brows of Henry Grattan, advancing like an Avatar to the rescue 
of Ireland. Even Castlereagh was so moved by that venerable and command¬ 
ing figure, in which life seemed to be only sustained by the intense will within, 
that he rose at the head of the whole treasury bench, bowed, and remained 
standing as the grand old tribune moved feebly to his place, in which, after 
taking the oaths, he spoke, sitting, for hours a speech full, fertile, brilliant, and 
convincing beyond any speech spoken on the subject, and beyond almost any of 
his own previous efforts. When he sat down, Isaac Corry was put up by Castle¬ 
reagh to make a formal closing of the debate, and when the house divided, 
government had a majority of 42. 


THE UNION. 

May 26, 1800. 

The resolutions of the English parliament suggesting articles of Union, were laid 
before the Irish Commons on the 5th of February. They were debated during 
the ensuing month. Grattan led the opposition with all the ancient lustre and 
electric vigour of his eloquence. By him, and by Saurin, Burrowes, and Goold, 
who had all been returned within the session, the brunt of these debates was borne. 
Plunket spoke but seldom. When George Ponsonby, on the 10th of March, 
raised the question of bribing members under the pretence of compensating for 
the loss of parliamentary influence, Plunket challenged Castlereagh to declare 
whether he really meant to raise £1,500,000 for such a purpose. 

“ Because, if the noble lord had decency enough to abandon so infamous, so 
base a part of his plan, as that of employing the money of the people to buy up 
their representatives, he deserved credit for it; and he called upon him now to 
stand up in his place and avow his abandonment, if he really had given up the 
measure, that the public mind might be calmed upon a subject of such abomina¬ 
tion, so irritating to their feelings, so insulting to the honour of their country; 
and that no base miscreant, however honourable or noble his rank, however 
powerful his influence, who had the meanness and criminality to listen to the 
corrupt and degrading proposal of purchasing from him the representative rights 


76 


plunket’s speeches. 


of his country, for fifteen, twenty or forty thousand pounds, to be wrung from 
tiie bowels of his miserable country, and afterwards have the baseness to Luast 
of his venality, should continue to exult in his infamous and corrupt triumph 
ever every principle of national honour and justice.” 

Castleveagh coolly answered, that he had no notion whatever of abandoning 
any part, of his plan, and he was only waiting until the articles of Union were 
adopted by both houses, to propose “ the exact quantum and mode of ompensa- 
tion.” Plunket could only make this caustic retort:— 
u Gentlemen on one side, it appears, are to have compensation for past services, and 
gentlemen borough proprietors on the other side are promised compensation in hope of 
future services. But neither are to have compensation unless the Union is carried. 

“ Here then is a poor country that has travelled, according to the noble lord's 
account, so rapidly in the career of bankruptcy, that her finances are unequal to 
her war establishment, or her civil establishment- a nation almost engulfed m 
the jaws of beggary and ruin—yet this poor country is now told by the mi¬ 
nister, he must find a million and a half of money, to be raffled for by the members 
of tills house—but that every man who takes the dice-box in his hand, to throw 
for his share of the plunder, must first pledge himaelf to vote for the Union 
“ What will the people of Ireland say to so base and flagitious a piece of plun¬ 
der, as this juggling from them, by taxes on their wants and miseries, the cnor 
mous sum of a million and a half, to reward the betrayers of their rights and 
liberties ?” 

He did not speak again until the 26th of May, when the bill for settling the 
commercial relations of the two countries under the Union, was in the stage of 
second reading. Grattan opened the debate in a masterly statistical statement, 
followed by passages of glowing appeal and exquisite imagery. Castlereagh 
answered with his natural cold-blooded insolence :— 

“ He called in question the patriotism of those who took every opportunity 
of inflaming the public mind against a settlement, which was on the very eve 
of conclusion; whatever might be their views, however strong their allusions to 
rebellion, government was energetic and able enough to defend the constitution 
against all future attacks, as it had against the past.” 

Mr. May more moderately supported the Secretary. In his mind it was an ex¬ 
cellent argument for Union, that the Irish house might by admixture reform 
the English house. One of the articles of Union, however, provided that not 
more than twenty Irish members holding office should be eligible to sit in tlie 
united parliament; so that Mr. May and his friends were, as it were, innocently 
supporting a self-denying ordinance. 

Mr. Speaker. I rise to reiterate my opposition to this measure—an 
opposition which I will never cease to make until the constitution ; s 
finally extinguished. 1 cannot subscribe to the new doctrine of the 
noble lord, that this bill must now be considered as passed, and that 
whoever ventures to oppose it in its second reading is guilty ot 
insolent disrespect to the law of the land, I congratulate the noble 
lord on his recent discovery, that it is insolence ki any man to set 
up his private opinion against the declared sense of parliament. If, 
when an unbought majority of parliament had reprobated a certain 
measure as a violation of the liberties and constitution of the land, 
a young man, with intemperate and ill-advised obstinacy, should do 


THE UNION. 


77 


clare himself determined to persevere in pressing that very measure, 
and that he would never lose sight of it—if such a man, slighting 
the sense of the legislature, abusing the power he possesses, and prac¬ 
tising against the virtue and independence of parliament, should 
come back here in less than twelve months, and, with a miserable 
venal and packed majority at his back, propose and carry that very 
measure against the former unbought and avowed opinion of the par¬ 
liament and the people, such a man must indeed be insolent and au¬ 
dacious. So far is it from being treason to expose and resist the 
attempt of such a man in every stage of it, it is loyalty and virtue 
to do so—it is of use to the country—it tends to preserve its peace 
—to show the people of Ireland that they are not destitute of friends, 
and to hold out a hope, which I have no doubt will be realised, that 
the constitution shall again be restored, and that better days are yet 
to come. It may prove, too, that, notwithstanding the treachery and 
the insolence with which our constitution and our liberties are now 
attacked, the people of Ireland are not yet abandoned, and that they 
have friends who will stand by them to the last. This bill 1 oppose, 
not as a bill of union, but of separation—as a bill calculated to dis¬ 
member the empire—a bill to put down the loyalty of the couni ry 
—a bill of robbery, not of legislation. (He then adverted to tue 
doctrine of Lord Clare respecting the competency of parliament, and 
10 the idea of Mr. May that this change would be a reform of the 
British parliament). This argument, so ingenious, I will not attempt 
to refute; nor do I wish to deprive a British parliament of any advan¬ 
tage they may derive from the infusion of such virtue and indepen¬ 
dence as that of the honourable gentleman ; but I cannot help calling 
the attention of the house and of the country to the opinion ex¬ 
pressed by the British minister himself of that class of men who are 
now to decide on the fate of Ireland. Into a British parliament 
twenty men only will be admitted of that description which now 
constitutes the minister’s majority. Let no more than twenty place¬ 
men vote on the present question, and I would freely and cheerfully 
submit the fate of the country to their decision. Let the minister 
even retain all his placemen, and let him put the question on the 
constitution of Ireland to a ballot, and I will abide the issue. Let 
the gentlemen who hold places vote uninfluenced by the fear of losiug 
their situations, and even they will act like Irishmen Who, then, 
are this body of men to whose opinion we are asked to look up 
with so much reverence ? They are men whom a British minister 
had declared too foul to pollute the walls of a British senate. Those 
men who are too base to emer the door of one parliament are to 

F 


pluxkf.t’s SPEECHES. 


7 3 

vote the extinction of another, and decide for ever upon the libertie. 
of this country! I again repeat it emphatically, you are in¬ 
competent to pass this measure against the sense of the nation. 
Such an act in such circumstances must want the binding obligation 
of a law. If any petulant and ignorant should accuse me of treason 
for this sentiment, I answer him but by scorn. My habits, my known 
principles, and the whole tenor of my life give the lie to the imputa¬ 
tion. 

The noble lord has talked in high-sounding terms of the ease vvitli 
which he would put down another rebellion, should this measure pro¬ 
duce one but if a future rebellion should not rouse the noble lord 
to more valorous exertion than he made during the last, the country 
cannot safety depend much upon the prowess of the noble lord Sir, 
who put down that rebellion ? I look around me, and I see the men 
to whose exertions we owe ouv deliverance These are the men 
whose courage and loyalty restored peace to the country whil* the 
noble lord was lounging about the Castle—if not more wickedly 
employed in plotting the destruction of the constitution of his country. 
As to the part which I have taken in opposing this measure, I look 
upon it as the proudest honour of my life. By it I wish to be remem¬ 
bered by posterity—it is an inheritance I am glad to transmit to my 
children. The recollection of the par* I have taken in common with 
the one hundred and twenty honest men who with incorruptible 
steadiness have defended the liberty of their country against the 
machinations of the noble lord and those under whom he acts, will 
soothe me at my last hour, and soften the blow of death : nay, when 
I am called before the Almighty Power, in whom I believe and trust, 
I am willing to take in my hand the record of my opposition to this 
measure, in humble confidence that it may ali'ord some atonement for 
the errors of which I have been guilty. 

Of course, ministers had a majority of 37. The votes which they had secured 
during the previous year sustained tnem at eveiy division and during the debates 
of lbtiO they could always calculate upon whipping a majority averaging -10 votes. 


THE UNION. 

June 7, 1800. 

The last of the Union debates were those of the 5th and 7th of Jane, in com¬ 
mittee. The resistance of the opposition was still gallantly, though hopelessly 
protracted. On the 5th, Mr. O'Donnell proposed an amendment, of which the 


THE UNION - . 


79 


reporters profess not to have learned the exact import, hut say it excited a great 
flume in the house. It appears to have been a declaration that the people ought 
to resist the Union by force. After a scene, with closed doors and galleries 
cleared, the amendment was withdrawn. 

On the 7th, O’Donnell moved a postponement of the third reading, and in 
supporting him, Francis Dobbs, Plunket’s colleague, delivered an extraordinary 
harangue. A learned lawyer and an accomplished gentleman, Dobbs was mad 
on one subject—the millenium, and firmly believed that Ireland was decreed by 
Providence to remain for ever an independent state, to be the birth-place of Anti¬ 
christ, and the temporal kingdom of the Messiah. The last remarkable speech 
made against the Union was couched in this extraordinary style. Pointing to 
the divided and convulsed state of Europe as the realization of one of Daniel s 
prophecies, and as a sure sign that the millenium was at hand, he declared he 
was not alarmed at the progress of a measure which he detested, as he was con¬ 
vinced it could never be operative. The house listened with mingled ridicule 
and horror. And O’Donnell’s motion was defeated, of course. 

The house having resolved itself into committee, the Hon. Mr. Anneslev in 
the chair, the detailed parts were read, and some amendments proposed by Lord 
Castlereagh adopted. 

On the clause regulating the representation in the first session of the united 
parliament being read, 

Mr. Plunket, after observing that any observations which he should 
offer on any part of this bill were not offered by him with a view of 
suggesting amendments that could or ought to make it less an 
object of abhorrence to the country than it was at present, but bad 
and destructive as the bill was and must be in every possible shape, 
he wished its enactments might be certain and explicit, so that the 
country should know what they had to look to. For this reason, 
therefore, he observed that by this article, as it now stood, there was' 
one very material case left totally unprovided for, and that was the 
case of his majesty’s dissolving the British parliament and calling a 
new one before the first of January next. The article stated that if 
his majesty should think proper so to declare under the great seal, 
that they, the present representatives of Great Britain, and the dele¬ 
gated members for this country should constitute the first united par¬ 
liament; but the article did not provide for the case which possibly 
might occur—that he should dissolve the British parliament before the 
1st of June, 1800, and therefore he would be glad to know whether, 
in that case, the delegates to be sent from the present Irish parlia¬ 
ment were to be continued as representatives in the united parliament 
until the term of the British representatives should elapse, which 
would be seven years from the first of January next. Should the 
king think proper to dissolve the present British parliament and call 
a new one before the Union should take place—or was it intended 
that when the united parliament should have sat three years, at 


80 


plunket’s speeches. 


which time the term of the Irish representatives would have expired, 
the counties and towns of Ireland were to be sent to new elections, 
while the British representatives only continued to legislate tor the 
two countries ; Ireland during the interval of the election having no 
representation whatsoever in the united parliament. One or other 
of these two things which he had now stated he conceived must in¬ 
evitably happen, ii this article stood as it was at present, and the 
crown should think proper before the next year to call a new British 
parliament: the first case he had supposed would be one of flagrant 
injustice to this country, by "continuing the representatives m that 
office four years beyond the time for which they were elected, and 
the other would be not only unjust, but an absurdity on the face oi it. 

After a good deal of time taken to consider, the Attorney-General replied 
by observing that the case supposed by Mr. Plunket, and on which the 
difficulty rested—namely, that the king should dissolve his British parlia¬ 
ment before next year, rested merely on a violent presumption, and was not rea¬ 
sonably to be looked for. The King could never be supposed to do that which 
would tend to defeat the measure of Union which he himself had recommended 
to his parliament. 

The Attorney-General’s argument was followed by that of William Johnson, 
who contended that if the King should dissolve both his parliaments, he might 
call two distinct new parliaments, which, under the provisions of this act, would 
sit in January next as the united parliament. 

The Speaker supported the objection of Mr. Plunket, and insisted that the 
article as it now stood, though drawn up by the officers of the crown, went to 
abridge in a very material instance the prerogative of the crown by preventing 
it from dissolving the British parliament before January next, unless it incurred 
oue or other of the absurdities which Mr. Plunket had stated. 

Lord Castlereagh and the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke in support of 
the article as it stood; but confined themselves to stating more at large the 
arguments of Mr. Johnson, namely, that the crown might dissolve both parlia¬ 
ments before January next, and call new ones for each country distinctly, which 
under this law would, in January, 1801, constitute the united parliament, thus 
leaving Plunket’s objection unanswered. 

This and several other clauses having been agreed to, when the chairman 
came to the part regulating the proportion of contribution between the two 
countries, 

Mr. Plunket objected to the data on which the proportion was 
founded. He insisted that there were no regular parliamentary docu¬ 
ments to go by; that the House and the country had no other guide 
than the noble lord’s assertion, which, however it might in other 
cases be entitled to confluence and respect, was not to be deemed 
sufficient in a case of such great and vital importance as that before 
the committee. The British minister, when he was laying on a tax 
only for a year, entered into calculations oi the cultivated acres in the 


THE UNION. 


81 


country—of the profit resulting from them—of the home trade of the 
country—of the profit made on the capital of the country—and laid 
authentic documents before the house on every one of these points. 
The noble lord, on the other hand, though deciding for ever upon the 
capacity of the country to bear taxation, had taken no account of the 
quantity of cultivated land in Ireland—none of the home trade of 
either country, though by that criterion England would be found more 
afyle to bear taxation than Ireland as thirty to one ; he had taken no 
account of the profit made upon Irish capital; he had reckoned only the 
capital itself—and even for these calculations he had furnished the 
house with no authentic documents on which they could rely. 

He then proceeded to prove by a variety of calculations, founded on 
irrefragable facts, that the proportion which Ireland ought to pay 
compared with that of England should be, instead of one to seven and 
a half, the proportion established by the bill, not more than one to 
twelve. He urged this point with great force, and pointed out the 
ruin and misery which must result to both countries from imposing 
upon us a proportion of taxation so inequitable in itself, and so much 
beyond our possible means of paying. 

Three days afterwards occurred the closing scene of the Irish parliament The 
last words of resistance to the Union were spoken by Plunket. In the parlia¬ 
mentary report of the 10th of June, we find it stated, that on the motion for a 
third reading of the Articles of Union Bill— 

“ Mr. Plunket rose anti began to arraign the means by which the Union had 
been carried, and having charged the minister with having employed bribery, 

“ The Hon. Mr. Butler called him to order. He said that he represented one 
of the most respectable counties in the kingdom, and no man could or should 
dare to say that the influence of bribery could reach him.” 

The Hon. Mr. Butler probably felt that the imputation was particularly 
pointed at him. He had been a staunch anti-Unionist until the month before, 
when he joined the government on Lord Corry’s motion, and, like the rest of 
Castlereagh’s later converts, it was supposed for a consideration of hard cash. 

The report proceeds:— 

“ Mr. Plunket again rose, and a cry of ‘ order!’ ‘ chair!’ resounded from both 
sides of the house, until at length the gallery was cleared, and strangers were 
not admitted until the house adjourned. While the house was in discussion, a 
great many of the anti-Union members seceded, and the Union bill passed, and 
was ordered to the Loids for their concurrence.” 





82 


rLUSKET S SPEECHES. 


ROBERT EMMET. 

September 19, 1803. 

The life of Robert Emmet is one of the most affecting episodes in Irish history. 
Of all the United Irishmen, there is not one who has left memory invested with 
so much sympathy at home and abroad. His last speech has been ever since 
liis death a gospel of rebellion against England. Even in the American school 
it is as popular a recitative as Patrick Henry’s defiances ; and Robert Emmet 
trampling on the British crown figured as often on a western signboard, thirty 
jears ago, as General Jackson. There was such pnrily, chivalry, and devotion 
in his nature—bis life, his love, his death, are full of a romance so true and so 
touching—that in thinking of him, men unconsciously elevate his character above 
the poor failure—an hour’s scuffle with the police and the picquet, stained by an 
atrocious murder—which history asserts his insurrection to have been. They 
wonder how that wild attempt can have won for its leader a character like 
Bayard’s ; but so it is. 

Bloore and Washington Irving have wafted the legend of his love for Sarah 
Curran and for Ireland whereyer the English language is spoken; and to Irish 
readers, the pious care of Doctor Madden has made every step in his attempt, from 
the ho»'r he left his brother Addis at Amsterdam to that of his execution, familiar. 
The noble integrity and courage of his character are above vindication. Even 
the British Lord Lieutenant, in a dispatch to his government, could not forbear 
to express his sense of “ that sentiment of magnanimity rvith which, whatever 
his crimes may have been, he certainly conducted himself ” Even Curran, who 
beheld in him the cause of a sore family sorrow, declared that he would rather 
trust the word of Robert Emmet than the oath of any other man in the world. 
Even the hardened gaoler, who turned the key of the condemned cell, fell sense¬ 
less as the young rebel passed forth, -with a face bright and serene as an angel's, 
to the sea field. 

For all the sacred obligation of his dying words, his name will not “ sleep in 
the shade,” but be the theme of song and story for many a day in Ireland. I 
would rather see his memory acquitted, if it may be, of that imputation >f 
reckless rashness which rests upon it, and which is the point of Plunket’s 
speech. It is difficult. He alone held and guided all the threads of the con¬ 
spiracy. When the first blow was struck and had failed, his lips were sealed, 
and his confederates, with the exception of those -who were actually engaged in 
the attempt to surprise the Castle, were saved. But I think there remains 
evidence enough to show that his designs were not the mere Quixotic enterprise 
they are represented, and that an hour’s success might have brought not 
merely “the bricklayer, the baker, the old clothesman, the hodman, and the 
ostler” to his side, but peers and merchants, the disgusted anti-Unionist and 
the disappointed Catholic agitator, the bankrupt city, and the peasantry of the 
south. 

The revolutions of ’48 have taught the world that one well-directed blow in 
a capital city, against a government to which the people are disaffected, is like 
p. spark of fire touching choke-damp. Emmet evidently acted upon some such 
idea. He did not attempt to revive the old ramified organization of the 
Umted Irishmen, of wtych government had got ail the clues, lie used its re- 


ROBERT EMMET. 


83 


miming links only so far as to prepare the peasantry for a general rising, when¬ 
ever they heard that the green dag had been set up on the Castle. The ques¬ 
tion is, had he a reasonable hope of carrying the English executive in Ireland 
by a coup de main , and was he certain of sufficient support at home and abroad 
if he had succeeded ? 

I doubt if any man can examine his masterly plan of attack, check, and de¬ 
fence in Dublin, the calculations upon which it rested, and the accidents by 
which it was baffled, without feeling that the government had almost a miracu¬ 
lous escape. The rebel depot had been for months in the immediate neighbour¬ 
hood of the Castle, yet until a few hours before the actual explosion of the 
insurrection the Lord Lieutenant had no information, and was quite unprepared 
when it burst upon him. The only force that could be got together to guard 
the Castle was a .police patrol and a lieutenant’s guard of fencibles. It was 
even without military stores at the time. Emmet, on the other hand, had cer¬ 
tainly provided more than sufficient force in men and armament. His supplies 
of arms and ammunition were immense. At the depot in Thomas-street alone, 
Lord de Blaquiere found nearly 12,000 pikes, and abundance of powder, rockets, 
and grenades. Within the last few hours, however, beginning with the ex¬ 
plosion of one of his magazines, everything fell asunder through a series of 
accidents and mistakes, which no human sagacity could have foreseen or 
ingenuity repaired. Napoleon Bonaparte might have failed in the same cir¬ 
cumstances. 

Had Emmet reason to suppose that if he could seize on the capital he would 
be supported by the country ? I think he had. The disaffection in Ireland at 
this date was more intense and pervading than it ever had been in Tone’s time. 
The Union was ruining Dublin. The national gentry remained disgusted with 
the government. The Catholics perceived that they had been deceived. The 
whole country was again ripe and alert for revolt. “ If Ireland be not attended 
to, it will be lost;” wrote Lord Charles Bentinck to his brother in India; 
“ these rascals are as ready as ever for rebellion.” “ I hope to See you next 
year,” wrote Lord Grenville, by the same mail, to the Marquis of Wellesley, 

‘ supposing at that period you have still a country to revisit.” Shortly after 
Emmet’s arrival in Ireland he dined with John Keogh, at Mount Jerome. 
Keogh was a cautious, but resolute and forecasting man. He agreed that if 
Emmet could rely upon even two counties rising, the experiment might succeed. 
Emmet counted upon nineteen, and he certainly had the zealous co-operation of 
five or six. General Tarleton’s evidence is that “ the conspiracy extended to 
the south beyond Cork, where the rebels learned by means of telegraphic fires 
the ill success of the insurrection in Dublin, before the king’s officers knew it in 
Cork. It was by thi3 information only that the insurrection was prevented from 
being general over the country.” 

Again, Emmet did not rely merely upon the masses. In his speech 
from the dock he declared that in this design he was only the subaltern 
of men before whose virtues and genius he bowed with respectful defe¬ 
rence. He referred, I dare say, chiefly to the United Irish leaders then in 
France. But, perhaps, he also included men like Keogh, Lord Wycombe 
(afterwards Lansdowne), Colonel Plunket, Colonel Lumm, and Mr. Fitzgerald, 
of Glyn, who were, if not compromised, at least in direct communication with 
him. I need only add on the subject of foreign assistance, of which Emmet, 
however, had always a strong suspicion, that in 1803 Bonaparte had really 
taken up the cause of Ireland—was organizing an Irish legion—had agreed to 


84 


plunket’s speeches. 


the future relations between the two republics—gave Emmet a long interview 
before he left for Ireland, and was also cognizant of several conferences between 
him and Tally rand. 

I do not state these facts merely to acquit Emmet’s character of the absurd 
and injurious imputation that he was a rash and visionary enthusiast, but to 
show the grounds upon which Plunket afterwards rested his defence of the 
speech which follows, and upon which I observe elsewhere. 

The trial occurred before the special commission presided over by Lord Nor- 
bury, on the 19th of September. Standish O’Grady, attorney-general, Mac 
Lelland, solicitor-general, and Plunket, were leading counsel for the crown; 
Peter Burrowes and Leonard Mac Nally, for the prisoner. 

Evidence was duly given of Emmet’s residence at Butterfield-lane, of his 
preparations at Thomas-street, of his appearing in green uniform with his lieu¬ 
tenant, the brave veteran Michael Quigley, Dowdall, and Stafford, of the brief 
career of the insurrection in arms, his subsequent flight to the mountains, and arrest. 
The proclamations and other documentary evidence were then given in, and the case 
closed on the part of the crown. I quote the scene which follows from the 
report:— 

Mr. Mac Nally. —My lord, Mr. Emmet says, he does not intend to call any 
witness, or to take up the time of the court by his counsel stating any case, or 
making observations upon the evidence; and therefore I presume the trial is 
now closed on both sides. 

Mr. Plunket. — It is with extreme reluctance that under such circumstances, 
and in a case like this, I do not feel myself at liberty to follow the example which 
has been set me by the counsel for the prisoner. 

Mr. Mac Nally.—I beg pardon; I am, then, to call on the court to decide 

a matter of practice, No doubt, the crown is entitled to the last word_that is 

a reply; but if I understand anything of the arrangement of; criminal trials, 
it is this: the counsel for the prosecution states the case; after the evidence 
given in support of it, the prisoner is called upon to state his case ; and if he 
does, the counsel for the prosecution has a right to reply; but I conceive that 
the word reply, according to its true meaning, is this : —observing upon that 
which has been urged in answer to the charge; but if there has been no answer, 
there can be no reply. I believe the case is new; at least since the proceedings 
in treason were regulated by statute, there is no instance where there had not 
been a defence made by the prisoner’s counsel, and an answer given to the evi¬ 
dence agahst him; therefore, I say, it is a new case. However, we do not in¬ 
tend to press the objection further, unless my learned friend, with whom 1 have 
the honour to act, should think proper to add anything in support of it. 

Lord Norbury. —Were it a^matter of any doubt, it would be our duty to 
have it spoken to; but as there can be no doubt that the counsel for the crown 
have a right to speak to a great body of evidence, and that the counsel for th« 
prisoner cannot by their silence preclude the crown from that right — we cannot 
prevent the reply ; if we did we should introduce a novel practice, which never 
prevailed in any of the state trials; into many of which for some time past I 
have looked. 

Mr. Attorney-General. —My lord, we feel that stating a case and obser¬ 
ving upon evidence are different duties. I have had the burden upon me of 
stating the case for the crown. The prisoner declining to go into any case, wears 


ROBERT EMMET. 


85 


the impression, that the case on the part of the crown does not require any an¬ 
swer, that is the most charitable way of considering his conduct, and therefore 
it is at my particular desire that Mr. Plunket rises to address the court and the 
jury upon this occasion. 

My lords and gentlemen of the jury, you need not entertain any 
apprehension that at this hour of the day I am disposed to take up 
a great deal of your time, by observing upon the evidence which has 
been given. In truth, if this were an ordinary case, and if the ob¬ 
ject of this prosecution did not include some more momentous inte¬ 
rests than the mere question of the guilt or innocence of the unfor¬ 
tunate gentleman who stands a prisoner at the bar, I should have 
followed the example of his counsel, and should have declined mak¬ 
ing any observation upon the evidence. But, gentlemen, I do feel 
this to be a case of infinite importance, indeed. It is a case impor¬ 
tant, like all others of this kind, by involving the life of a fellow sub¬ 
ject; but it is doubly—and tenfold important, because from the 
evidence which has been given in the progress of it, the system of 
this conspiracy against the laws and constitution of the country has 
been developed in all its branches; and in observing upon the con - 
duct of the prisoner at the bar, and in bringing home the evidence 
of his guilt, I am bringing home guilt to a person who, I say, is the 
centre, the lifeblood and soul of this atrocious conspiracy. 

Gentlemen, with respect to the evidence which has been offered 
upon the part of the crown to substantiate the guilt of the prisoner, 
I shall be very short indeed in recapitulating and observing upon it 
—I shall have very little more to do than to follow the statement 
which was made by my learned and eloquent friend who stated the 
case upon the part of the crown ; because it appears to me that the 
outline which was given by him has been with an exactness and pre¬ 
cision seldom to be met with, followed up by the proof. Gentlemen, 
what is the sum and substance of that evidence ? I shall not detain 
you by detailing the particulars of it ? You see the prisoner at the 
bar returning from foreign countries some time before hostilities were 
on the point of breaking out between these countries and France. 
At first avowing himself—not disguising or concealing himself—he 
was then under no necessity of doing so ; but when hostilities cora- 
meneed, and when it was not improbable that foreign invasion 
might co-operate with domestic treason, you see him throwing off 
the name by which he was previously known, and disguising him¬ 
self under new appellations and characters. You see him in the 
month of March or April going to an obscure lodging at Harold’s- 
cross, assuming the name of Hewitt, and concealing liimselt there. 


86 


plunket’s speeches. 


For what purpose ? Has be called upon any witness to explain it to 
you ? If he were upon any private enterprise—if for fair and ho¬ 
nourable views—or any other purpose than that which is imputed to 
him by the indictment—has he called a single witness to explain it ? 
No; but after remaining six weeks or two months in this conceal¬ 
ment, 'when matiers began to ripen a little more, when the house was 
nired in Thomas-streei, which became the depot and magazine oi 
military preparation, he then thinks it necessary to assume another cha¬ 
racter and another place of abode, accommodated to a more enlarged 
sphere of action—he abandons his lodging—he pays a fine of sixty- 
one guineas for a house in Butterlield-lane, again disguised bv an¬ 
other assumed name, that of Ellis. Has he called any person to ac¬ 
count for this; or to excuse by argument, or even by assertion, this 
conduct ? Why for any honest purpose should he take this place 
for his habitation, under a feigned name? 

But you find his plans of treason becoming more mature. He is 
there associated with two persons. One of the name of Dowdall; 
we have not explained in evidence what his situation is, or what he 
had been; the other is Quigley ; he has been ascertained by the evi¬ 
dence to have been a person originally following the occupation of a 
bricklayer; but he thought proper to desert the humble walk in which 
he was originally placed, and to become a framer of constitutions and 
subverter of empires. 

With these associates he remains at Butterfield-lane, occasionally 
leaving it and returning again ; whether he was superintending the 
works which were going forward, or whatever other employment en¬ 
gaged him, you will determine. Be it what it may; if it were not lor the 
purpose of treason and rebellion, he has not thought proper by evidence 
to explain it. So matters continued until some short time before the fatal 
night of the 23rd of July. They became somewhat hastened by 
an event which took place about a week before the breaking out of 
the insurrection. A house in Patrick-streer, in which a quantity of 
powder had been collected for the purpose of the rebellion, exploded. 
An alarm was spread by this accident; the conspirators found that if 
they delayed their schemes and waited for foreign co-operation, they 
would be detected and defeated ; and therefore it became necessary 
to hasten to immediate action. What is the consequence ? From 
that time the prisoner is not seen in his old habitation. He moves 
into town, and becomes an inmate and constant inhabitant of this 
depot. These facts, which I am stating are not collected by inference 
from his disguise, his concealment, or the assumption of a feigned 
name, or the other concomitant circumstances; but are proved by the 


ItOBEBT EMMET. 


87 


positive testimony of three witnesses; all of whom positively swear 
to the identity of his person: Fleming, Coghlan, and Farrell, every 
one of whom swears he saw the prisoner, tallying exactly with each 
other, as to his person, the dress he wore, the functions he exercised ; 
and every one of whom had a full opportunity of knowing him. You 
saw him at Butterfield-lane, under the assumed name of Ellis—you 
see mm carrying the same name into the depot, not wishing to avow 
his own, until the achievement of the enterprise would crown it with 
some additional eclat. 

The first witness, Fleming, appears in the character of a person 
who was privy to the conspiracy—he was acquainted with the depot 
from the moment it was first taken—he had access to it and co-ope¬ 
rated in the design—he was taken upon suspicion, and under these 
circumstances, he makes the disclosure. If the case of the prosecu¬ 
tion rested upon the evidence of this man alone, though an accom¬ 
plice in the crime, it would be sufficient evidence to go to you for 
your consideration, upon which you would either acquit the prisoner 
or find him guilty. In general, from the nature of the crime of trea¬ 
son—from the secrecy with which it is hatched and conducted, it 
frequently happens that no other evidence can be resorted to than 
that of accomplices; and therefore, notwithstanding the crimes of 
such witnesses, their evidence is admissible to a jury. But doubtless 
every honest and considerate jury, whether in a case of life or not, 
will scrupulously weigh such evidence. If it be consistent with 
itself, disclosing a fair and candid account, and is not impeached 
by contradictory testimony, it is sufficient to sustain a verdict of 
guilty. 

But, gentlemen, I take up your time unnecessarily, in dwelling upon 
this topic, which I introduced rather in justification of the principles 
w hich regulate such evidence, than as attaching any particular weight 
to it in the present instance. Because, if you blot it altogether from 
your minds, you have then the testimony of two other persons not 
tainted with the conspiracy; one of them brought in while in a state 
of intoxication, and the other taken by surprise when he was watch¬ 
ing at the door, in every respect corroborating the testimony of Flem¬ 
ing, and substantiating the guilt of the prisoner. You heard the kind 
of implements which were prepared, their account of the command 
assumed by the prisoner—living an entire week in the depot:, ani¬ 
mating his workmen, and hastening them to the conclusion of their 
business. When the hour of action arrived, you see him dressed in 
military array, putting himself at the head of the troops who had 
been shut up with him in this asylum, and advancing with his party, 


83 


plunket’s speeches. 


arrr'vl for the capture of the Castle, and the destruction of his fel¬ 
low-citizens. 

Gentlemen, what was the part which the prisoner took in that night 
of horror I will not attempt to insinuate to you. I hope and trust in God, 
for the sake of himself, his fame, his eternal welfare, that he was 
incapable of being a party to the barbarities which were committed 
—I do not mean to insinuate that he was—but that he headed this 
troop, and was present while some shots were fired, has been proved 
by uncontroverted testimony. At what time he quitted them—whe¬ 
ther from prudence, despair, or disgust, he retired from their bands, is 
not proved by evidence upon the table; but from the moment of the 
discomfiture of his project, we find him again concealed. We trace 
him with the badges of rebellion glittering upon his person, attended 
by the two other consuls, Quigley, the bricklayer, and Dowdall, the 
clerk—whether for concealment or to stimulate the wretched pea¬ 
santry to other acts of insurrection, you will determine; we first 
trace him to Doyle’s and then to Bagnall’3: one identifies him, the 
other, from her fears, is incapable of doing so. But the same party, 
in the same uniforms, go to her house, until the apprehension of de¬ 
tection drove them from her. When he could no longer find shelter 
in the mountains, nor stir up the inhabitants of them, he again re¬ 
tires to his former obscure lodging, the name of Ellis is abandoned, 
the regimental coat is abandoned, and again he assumes the name of 
Hewitt. What is his conduct in this concealment ? He betrays 
his apprehensions of being taken up by government. For what ? 
Has any explanation been given to show what it could be, unless for 
rebellious practices ? There he plans a mode of escape, refusing 
to put his name upon the door. You find him taken a reluctant pri¬ 
soner, twice attempting to escape, and only brought within the reach 
of the law by force and violence. What do you find then ? Has 
he been effecting to disguise his object, or that his plan was less dig¬ 
nified than his motive—that of treason ? No such thing. He tells 
young Palmer that he was in Thomas-street that night—he confesses 
the treason—he boasts of his uniform, part of which was upon his 
person when he was taken. He acknowledges all this to the young 
man in the house—a witness, permit me to remark, not carried away 
by any excess of over-zeal to say anything to the injury of the pri¬ 
soner, and therefore to his testimony, so far as it affects the prisouer, 
you may, with a safe conscience, afford a reasonable degree of credit. 

Under what circumstances is he taken ? In the room in which 
he was—upon a chair near the door is found an address to the 
government of the country; and in the very first paragraph of that 


ROBERT EMMET. 


89 


address, the composer of it acknowledges himself to he at the head 
of a conspiracy for the overthrow of the government, which he 
addresses, telling them, in diplomatic language, what conduct the 
undersigned will be compelled to adopt, if they shall presume to exe¬ 
cute the law. He is the leader, whose nod is a fiat, and he warns 
them of the consequences ! 

Gentlemen ot the jury, you will decide whether the prisoner at 
the bar or Mrs. Palmer was the person who denounced those terms, 
and this vengeance against the government. What is found upon 
him ? A letter written by a brother conspirator consulting him upon 
the present posture of the rebellion, their future prospects, and the 
probability of French assistance, and also the probable effects of that 
assistance, if it should arrive. What farther is found at the depot ?— 
and everything found there, whether coming out of the desk which 
he appears to have used and resorted to, or in any other part of the 
place which he commanded, is evidence against him. You find a 
treatise upon the art of war, framed for the purpose of drilling the 
party who were employed to effect this rebellion ; but of war they 
have proved that they are incapable of knowing anything but its 
ferocities and its crimes; you find two proclamations, detailing sys¬ 
tematically and precisely the views and objects of this conspiracy ; 
and you find a manuscript copy of one of them, with interlineations, 
and other marks of its being an original draft. It will be for you 
to consider who was the framer of it—the man who presided in the 
depot, and regulated all the proceedings there ; or whether it was 
framed by Dowdall, the clerk, by Quigley, the bricklayer, or by 
Stafford, the baker, or any of the illiterate victims of the ambition 
of this young man who have been convicted in this court, or whe¬ 
ther it did not flow from his pen, and was dictated by his heart. 

Gentlemen, with regard to this mass of accumulated evidence, 
forming irrefragable proof of the guilt of the prisoner, I conceive 
no man capable of putting together two ideas can have a doubt. 
Why then do I address you, or why should I trespass any longer 
upon your time and your attention ? Because, as I have already 
mentioned, I feel this to be a case of great public expectation—of 
the very last national importance ; and because, when I am prose- 
tuting a man, in whose veins the very life-blood of this conspiracy 
flowed, I expose to the public eye the utter meanness and insuffi¬ 
ciency of its resources. What does it avow itself to be ? A plan, 
not to correct the excesses or reform the abuses of the government 
of the country; not to remove any specks of imperfection which 
might have grown upon the surface ot the constitution, or to re- 


90 


plumeet’s speeches. 


strain the overgrown power of the crown; or to restore any pri¬ 
vilege of parliament; or to throw any new security around the liberty 
of the subject. No ; but it plainly and boldly avows itself to be a 
plan to separate Great Britain from Ireland, uproot the monarchy, 
and establish “ a tree and independent republic in Ireland,” in its 
place I To sever the connexion between Great Britain and Ireland! 
Gentlemen, I should feel it a waste of words and of public time, 
were I addressing you or any person within the limits of my voice, 
to talk of the frantic desperation of the plan of any man who spe¬ 
culates upon the dissolution of that empire, whose glory and whose 
happiness depend upon its indissoluble connexion. But were it 
practicable to sever that connexion, to untie the links which biud us 
to the British constitution, and to turn us adrift upon the turbulent 
ocean of revolution, who could answer for the existence of this coun¬ 
try, as an independent power, for a year ? God and nature have 
made the two countries essential to each other—let them cling to 
each other to the end of time, and their united affection and loyalty 
will be proof against the machinations of the world. 

But how was this to be done ? By establishing “ a free and inde¬ 
pendent republic !” High sounding name ! I would ask, whether 
the man who used it understood what he meant ? I will not ask 
what may be its benefits, for I know its evils. There is no magic 
in the name. We have heard of “free and independent republics,” 
and have since seen the most abject slavery that ever groaned under 
iron despotism growing out of them. 

Formerly, geutlemen of the jury, we have seen revolutions effected 
by some great call of the people, ripe for change and unfitted by 
their habits for ancient forms ; but here from the obscurity of con¬ 
cealment and by the voice of that pigmy authority, self-created and 
fearing to show itself, but in arms under cover of the night, we are 
called upon to surrender a constitution which has lasted for a period 
of one thousand years. Had any body of the people come forward, 
stating any grievance or announcing their demand for a change 't 
No; but while the country is peaceful, enjoying the blessings of the 
constitution, growing rich and happy under it, a few desperate, ob¬ 
scure, contemptible adventurers in the trade of revolution form a 
scheme against the constituted authorities of the land, and by force 
and violence to overthrow an ancient and venerable constitution, and 
to plunge a whole people into the horrors of civil war! 

If the wisest head that ever lived had framed the wisest system 
of laws which human ingenuity could devise—if he were satisfied 
that the system were exactly fitted to the disposition ot the people 


Robert emmet. 


91 


for whom ho intended it, and that a great proportion of that people 
weie anxious for its adoption—vet give me leave to say, that under all 
these circumstances of fitness and disposition, a well-judging mind aud 
a humane heart would pause awhile and stop upon the brink of his 
purpose, before he would hazard the peace of the country, by resort¬ 
ing to force for the establishment of his system; but here, in the 
f enzy of a distempered ambition, the author of this proclamation 
conceives the project of “ a free and independent republiche at 
once flings it down, and he tells every man in the community, rich 
or poor, loyal or disloyal, he must adopt it at the peril of being con¬ 
sidered an enemy to the country, and of suffering the pains aud 
penalties attendant thereupon. 

And how was this revolution to be effected ? The proclamation 
conveys an insinuation that it was to be effected by their own force, 
entirely independent of foreign assistance. Why? Because it was 
well known that there remained in this country few so depraved, so 
lost to the welfare of their native land, who would not shudder at 
forming an alliance with France; and therefore the people of Ire¬ 
land are told, “ the effort is to be entirely your own, independent ol 
foreign aid.” But how does this tally with the time when the scheme 
was first hatched—the very period of the commencement of the war 
with France ? How does this tally with the fact of consulting in the 
depot, about co-operating with the French, which has been proved 
in evidence ? But, gentlemen, out of the proclamation I convict 
him of duplicity. He tells the government of the country not to 
resist their mandate, or think that they can effectually suppress re¬ 
bellion, by putting down the present attempt, but that “ they will 
have to crush a greater exertion, rendered still greater by foreign 
assistance;” so that upon the face of the proclamation they avowed, 
in its naked deformity, the abominable plan of an alliance with the 
usurper of the French throne, to overturn the ancient constitution ot 
the land, and to substitute a new republic in its place. 

Gentlemen, so far I have taken up your time with observing upon 
the nature and extent of the conspiracy; its objects and the means 
by which they proposed to effectuate them. Let me now call your 
attention to the pretexts by which they seek to support them. They 
have not stated what particular grievance or oppression is complained 
of, but they have travelled back into the history of six centuries— 
they have raked up the ashes of former cruelties and rebellions, and 
upon the memory of them, they call upon the good people of this 
country to embark into similar troubles ; but they forget to tell the 
people, that until the infection of new-fangled French principles was 


92 


PLTNKET S SPEECHES. 


introduced, this country was for an hundred years free from the slight¬ 
est symptom of rebellion, advancing in improvement of every kind 
beyond any example, while the former animosities of the country were 
melting down into a general system of philanthropy and cordial 
attachment to each other. They forget to tell the people whom 
they address that they have been enjoying the benefit of equal laws, 
by which the property, the person, and constitutional rights and pri¬ 
vileges of every man are abundantly protected. They have not 
pointed out a single instance of oppression. Give me leave to ask 
any man who may have suffered himself to be deluded by those ene¬ 
mies of the law, what is there to prevent the exercise of honest in¬ 
dustry and enjoying the produce of it ? Does any man presume to 
invade him in the enjoyment of hi3 property ? If he does, is not 
the punishment of the law brought down upon him ? What does 
he want ? What is it that any rational friend to freedom could ex¬ 
pect, that the people of this country are not fully and amply in the 
possession of? And therefore when those idle stories are toidof six 
hundred years oppression and of rebellions prevailing when this 
country was in a state of ignorance and barbarism, and which have 
long since passed away, they are utterly destitute of a fact to rest 
upon ; they are a fraud upon feeling, and are the pretext of the fac¬ 
tious and ambitious, working upon credulity and ignorance. 

Let me allude to another topic: they call for revenge on account 
of the removal of the parliament. Those men who, in 1798, endea¬ 
voured to destroy the parliament, now call upon the loyal men, who 
opposed its transfer, to join them in rebellion; an appeal vain and 
fruitless. Look around and see with what zeal and loyalty they 
rallied round the throne and constitution of the country. Whatever 
might have been the difference of opinion heretofore among Irishmen 
upon some points, when armed rebels appeared against the laws and 
public peace, every minor difference was annihilated in the paramount 
claim of duty to our king and country. 

So much, gentlemen, for the nature of this conspiracy and the 
pretexts upon which it rests. Suffer me, for a moment, to call your 
attention to one or two of the edicts published by the conspirators. 
They have denounced, that if a single Irish soldier, or in more faith¬ 
ful description, Irish rebel, shall lose his life after the battle is over, 
quarter is neither to be given nor taken. Observe the equality of the 
reasoning of these promulgers of liberty and equality. The dis¬ 
tinction is this: English troops are permitted to arm in defence of 
the government and the constitution of the country, and to maintain 
their allegiance ; but if an Irish soldier, yeoman, or other loyal per- 


EGBERT EMMET. 


93 


son, who shall not within the space of fourteen days from the date 
and issuing forth of their sovereign proclamation, appear in arms 
with them ; if he presumes to obey the dictates of his conscience, his 
duty, and his interest—if he has the hardihood to be loyal to his so¬ 
vereign and his country, he is proclaimed a traitor, his life is for¬ 
feited, and his property is confiscated. A sacred palladium is thrown 
over the rebel cause, w hile, in the same breath, undistinguishing ven¬ 
geance is denounced against those who stand up in defence of the 
existing and ancient laws of the country. For God’s sake, to whom 
are we called upon to deliver up, with only fourteen days to consider 
of it, all the advantages we enjoy ? Who are they wdio claim the 
obedience ? The prisoner is the principal: I do not wish to say any 
thing harsh of him ; a young man of considerable talents, if used with 
precaution, and of respectable rank in society, if content to conform 
himself to its laws. But when he assumes the manner and the tone 
of a legislator, and calls upon all ranks of people, the instant the 
provisional government proclaim in the abstract a new government, 
without specifying what the new laws are to be, or how the people are 
to be conducted and managed—but that the moment it is announced, 
the whole constituted authority is to yield to him; it becomes an 
extravagance bordering upon frenzy; this is going beyond the example 
of all former times. If a rightful sovereign were restored, he would 
forbear to inflict punishment upon those who submitted to the king de 
facto , but here there is no such forbearance. We who have lived 
under a king, not only de facto but dc jure in possession of the 
throne, are called upon to submit ourselves to the prisoner—to Dow- 
dall, the vagrant politician—to the bricklayer, to the baker, the old- 
clothes-man, the hodman, and the ostler. These are the persons to 
whom this proclamation, in its majesty and dignity, calls upon a 
great people to yield obedience, and a powerful government to give 
a prompt, manly, and sagacious acquiescence to their just and un¬ 
alterable determination !** “We call upon the British government 
not to be so mad as to oppose us.” Why, gentlemen, this goes be¬ 
yond all serious discussion; and I mention it merely to show the 
contemptible nature of this conspiracy, which hoped to have set the 
entire country in a flame. When it was joined by nineteen counties 
from north to south, catching the electrical spark of revolution, they 
engaged in the conspiracy—the general, with hi&dieutenant-general, 
putting himself at the head of the forces, collected not merely from 
ihe city, but Irom the neighbouring counties; and when all their 
strength is collected, voluntary and forced, they are stopped in their 
progress, in the first glow of their valour, by the honest voice of a 

G 

i 


04 


plusket’s SPEECHL3. 


single peace officer, at which the provincial forces were disconcerted 
and alarmed, but ran like hares, when one hundred soldiers appeared 
against them. 

Gentlemen, why do I state these facts ? Is it to show that the 
government need not be vigilant, or that our gallant countrymen 
should relax in their exertions ? By no means ; but to induce the 
miserable victims who have been misled by those phantoms of revo¬ 
lutionary delusion, to show them, that they ought to lose no time in 
abandoning a cause which cannot protect itself, and exposes them to 
destruction, and to adhere to the peaceful and secure habits of honest 
industry. If they knew it, they have no reason to repine at their 
lot. Providence is not so unkind to them in casting them in that 
humble walk in which they are placed. Let them obey the law and 
cultivate religion, and worship their God in their own way. They 
may prosecute their labour in peace and tranquillity; they need not 
envy the higher ranks of life, but may look with pity upon that vici¬ 
ous despot who watches with the sleepless eye of disquieting ambi¬ 
tion, and sits a wretched usurper trembling upon the throne of the 
Bourbons. But I do not wish to awaken any remorse, except such 
as may be salutary to himself and the country, in the mind of the 
prisoner. But when he reflects, that he has stooped from the ho¬ 
nourable situation in which his birth, talents, and his education placed 
him, to debauch the minds of the lower orders of ignorant men 
with the phantoms of liberty and equality, he must feel that it was 
an unworthy use of his talents; he should feel remorse for the con¬ 
sequences which ensued, grievous to humanity and virtue, and should 
endeavour to make all the atonement he can, by employing the little 
time which remains for him in endeavouring to undeceive them. 

Liberty and equality are dangerous names to make use of; if pro¬ 
perly understood, they mean enjoyment of personal freedom under 
the equal protection of the laws; and a genuine love of liberty in¬ 
culcates a friendship for our friends, our king, and country—a re¬ 
verence for their lives, an anxiety for their safety; a feeling which 
advances from private to public life, until it expands and swells into 
the more diguifled name of philanthropy and philosophy. But in 
the cant of modern philosophy, these affections which form the enno¬ 
bling distinctions of man’s nature are all thrown aside ; all the vices 
of his character are made the instrument of moral good—an abstract 
quantity of vice may produce a certain quantity of moral good. To 
a man whose principles are thus poisoned and his judgment perverted 
the most flagitious crimes lose their names; robbery and murder be¬ 
come moral good. He is taught not to startle at putting to death a 



ROBERT EMMET. 


95 


fellow creature, if it be represented as a mode of contributing to the 
good of all. In pursuit of those phantoms and chimeras of the brain, 
they abolish feelings and instincts, which God and nature have planted 
in our hearts for the good of human kind. Thus by the printed plan 
for the establishment of liberty and a free republic, murder is prohi¬ 
bited and proscribed; and yet you heard how this caution against 
excesses was followed up by the recital of every grievance that ever 
existed, and which could excite every bad feeling of the heart, the 
most vengeful cruelty and insatiate thirst of blood. 

Gentlemen, I am anxious to suppose that the mind of the prisoner 
recoiled at the scenes of murder which he witnessed, and I mentiou 
one circumstance with satisfaction : it appears he saved the life of 
Farrell; and may the recollection of that one good action cheer him 
in his last moments ! But though he may not have planned indivi¬ 
dual murders, that is no excuse to justify his embarking in treason, 
which must be followed by every species of crimes. It is supported 
by the rabble of the country, while the rank, the wealth, and the power 
of the country are opposed it. Let loose the rabble of the countjy 
from the salutary restraints of the law, and who can take upon him 
to limit their barbarities ? Who can say, he will disturb the peace 
of the world and rule it when wildest ? Let loose the winds of hea¬ 
ven, and what power less than omnipotent can control them ? So 
it is with the rabble; let them loose, and who can restrain them ? 
What claim, then, can the prisoner have upon the compassion of a 
jury, because in the general destruction which his schemes necessarily 
produce he did not meditate individual murder ? In the short space 
of a quarter of an hour, what a scene of blood and horror was exhi¬ 
bited ! I trust that the blood which has been shed in the streets of 
Dublin upon that night, and since upon the scaffold, and which may 
hereafter be shed, will not be visited upon the head of the prisoner. 
It is not for me to say what are the limits of the mercy of God, or 
what a sincere repentance of those crimes may effect; but I do say, 
that if this unfortunate young gentleman retains any of the seeds of 
humanity in his heart, or possesses any of those qualities which a 
virtuous education in a liberal seminary must have planted in his bosom, 
he will make an atonement to his God and his country, by employing 
whatever time remains to him in warning his deluded countrymen 
from persevering in their schemes. Much blood has been shed, and 
he perhaps would have been immolated by his followers if he had 
succeeded. They are a bloodthirsty crew, incapable of listening to 
the voice of reason, and equally incapable of obtaining rational free¬ 
dom, if it were wanting in this country, as they are of enjoying it. 


96 


plunket’s speeches. 


They imbrue their hands in the most sacred blood of the country, 
and yet they call upon God to prosper their cause, as it is just!— 
But as it is atrocious, wicked, and abominable, I most devoutly in¬ 
voke that God to confound and overwhelm it. 

Norbury’s ferocious charge, the verdict, Emmet’s glorious speech, the last 
sentence of the law quickly followed, and next day dogs were lapping the young 
rebel’s blood under the scaffold in Thomas-street. 


THE THRESHERS. 

December 5, 1806. 

Ix the year 180G, agrarian disturbances had risen to an extraordinary pitch in 
north Conuaught and in parts of Ulster—throughout that district, famous for 
hogs, rack-rents, poteen, and Whiteboys, stretching from Cavan across the coun¬ 
try to Sligo—a district which, in disturbed times, has always exhibited a cer¬ 
tain uniform character and correspondence of action, like the subterranean sym¬ 
pathies of a volcanic district. The five counties of Cavan, Leitrim, Longford, 
Sligo, and Mayo were included in a special commission, issued in the winter to 
Chief Justice Downes and Baron George, upon which they at once proceeded to 
strike terror into the Threshers. The Threshers formed one of the most formid¬ 
able, well-organized, and levelling secret societies that ever existed in Ireland, 
and bore the peculiar character that its principal object of attack was neither 
rent, cess, nor excise—but the priest’s dues and the minister’s tithes. In soma 
places they undertook to regulate wages, and in all, were armed, badged, and 
drilled. 

The special commission first sat at Sligo—Plunket and Bushe appearing for 
the crown, as attorney and solicitor-general—and the first indictment tried was 
that “John M‘Donough and William Kearney, with many others, on the ? % nd of 
September last, after sun-set and before sun-rise, did maliciously and feloniously 
break and enter the dwelling-house of Peter O’Neill, at Cartron Watts, inthecounty 
of Sligo, that they maliciously assaulted and injured the habitation of O’Neill, 
and forcibly took away his money; and that prisoners provided an instrument, 
to wit, weaver's cards, for inflicting bodily pain and punishment upon O’Neill, 
in order to compel him to enter into an unlawful confederacy, called Threshers; 
that they inflicted punishment with that intent, and by menaces and intimidation 
exacted money and goods from him.” Plunket stated the case :— 

Mt Lords and Gentlemen of the Jury, in this case, as counsel for 
the crown, it is my duty to lay before you the grounds of the pre¬ 
sent prosecution. The indictments upon which the prisoners are 
arraigned have been read, and you are thereby apprised of the nature 
of the charges preferred against them. The charges go to a variety 
of acts, all, by the law of the land, capital, and if the prisoners are 
guilty of all or any of them, the consequence is death : the charges 
in their nature are such as draw down the highest punishment of the 
law. The prisoners are charged with breaking and entering ttiQ 


THE THRESHERS. 


97 


dwelling-house of a fellow-subject in the nighttime; with robbing 
that fellow-subject of his money, and with inflicting torture upon 
his person, tor the purpose of compelling him to become a member of 
their own lawless aud dangerous associations. These are crimes, 
gentlemen, which no civilized society can tolerate. They bid defiance 
to all law, and assert a claim ot unconditional submission to those who 
avow themselves the bearers of that defiance. These are conditions 
under which no government can exist. But if the crimes with 
which the unfortunate men are charged, however atrocious, did not 
involve consequences of a peculiar nature, they would have been - 
left to the ordinary visitation of the law, and would be tried at the 
regular assizes of the county. It is because they torm part of a 
class of atrocities which disturb the tranquillity, and in their pro¬ 
gress endanger the safety of the country, that you have been assem¬ 
bled at this season of the year lor the immediate and solemn dispen¬ 
sation of justice. Gentlemen, it is with great satisfaction I see, upou 
a subject of this emergency, so full and respectable an attendance, 
calculated to impress every mind with a sense of obedience to the 
law. Every gentleman of character—of rank—ot consideration and 
of property, appears at his post on this important occasion, to give 
his personal sanction to the law. Judges of the land are sent, armed 
with his majesty’s commission, and armed with a character resulting 
from their learning and virtues, which reflect lustre am dignity on 
that commission. Gentlemen, everything has been done on the part 
of the government to let the wretched people of this country see 
that there are laws for the punishment of guilt, and that no nerve 
will be left unstrained to give effect and vigour to them. I there¬ 
fore rejoice to see such an array of rank and property upon the 
grand jury which has found the bills, and such a respectable descrip¬ 
tion of gentlemen composing the petty jury which I now address' 
because it must remove from the minds of the wretched people, 
engaged in these outrages, the delusions which have been industri¬ 
ously spread to excite the hope of impunity. In aid of the magis¬ 
tracy, from whom information lias been procured, they see the wnolo 
body of the county—every man who has talent, character, and 
property, rallying round the constitution. It is not, therefore, merely 
for the purpose of inquiring into the guilt of the persons now on 
trial, but to bring home punishment to the great body of the guilty 
—protection to the great body of the innocent—to undeceive ttie 
abused, and give confidence to the disheartened, and to restore peace 
and tranquillity to the country, that this special commissioa has been 


98 


plunket’s speeches. 


issued,* and you, gentlemen, to perform your sacred part, have been 
sworn upon the jury. 

Gentlemen, it is far from my purpose or my wish, that by having 
your minds strongly moved with a sense of the mischiefs prevailing 
in the country, any of the prisoners should be visited with peculiar 
hardships. On the contrary, upon an occasion ot this kind, it is my 
duty to caution you against the suggestions of rumour or prejudice: 
it is our duty to vindicate, not to strain, the law. If the prisoners 
are guilty, the guilt should be brought home by clear legal evidence. 
God forbid, gentlemen, that your abhorrence of the crime should 
work injustice to the criminal or the accused. But, gentlemen, you 
will feel that it is not irrelevant to the subject to call your attention 
to what is, and what has been, the state of the country; because it 
grows out of the association imputed to the prisoners, and it is there¬ 
fore that the consequence ot guilt and punishment attaches upon 
them. And therefore, gentlemen, in calling your attention to the 
state of the country, and the nature of the outrages, I feel that I do 
not transgress my duty in the case now before you. 

Gentlemen, it is unfortunately too notorious to need any minute 
statement, that for some time past the peace of this county has been 
infested by a set of persons assuming the name of Threshers. Their 
outrageous associations have been in direct defiance of the law. 
The business has originated with men possessing no situation—whom 
nobody knows—a set of men who dare not avow themselves—a 
description of persons not possessed of any rank—of any property 
—of any talent—of any education—men who are not placed in any 
situation, either by the conventions of society or their own fitness, 
entitling them to dictate to their fellow-subjects, or to take upon 
themselves the task of reformation and of legislation. These per¬ 
sons have discovered that the existing laws are not to their mind— 
they have found out that there are errors in the state and in the 
church, and they have conceived that they are the proper persons to 
undertake the task of reforming them. But not satisfied with infring¬ 
ing the law in their own persons individually, they become associated 
for the purpose of saying, that no other person in the community 
shall dare to obey the law. So that the first act of those who pro¬ 
fess to interfere upon principles of liberty is to exercise compulsion 
over the consciences of others, and to say, that no man shall pre¬ 
sume to form an opinion for himself, nor act upon it, unless it meet 
the approbation of those self-created reformers. The pretext upon 
which these illegal confederacies is formed is, a repugnance to the 
payments in support of the legal establishment of the church of the 


THE THRESHERS. 


99 


country, and also of the fees which have been usually paid, without 
any law to enforce them, to the clergymen of the Catholic persuasion. 
The mode taken to accomplish this object has been by assembling 
themselves at night in disguise, sometimes with arms, going to the 
houses of such persons as refuse to associate themselves in their body, 
and if necessary for their purpose, breaking open the houses of those 
persons, and robbing them of their property, inflicting torture upon 
those who become objects of their enmity, and if necessary for the 
final completion of their designs, if any person be honest or bold 
enough to give information against them, the business, which began 
in lawless combination, is consummated by murder. 

Gentlemen of the jury, this is the natural progress of associations 
of. this kind. When men enrol themselves for the purpose of resist¬ 
ing the law, whatever the pretext may be upon which they originally 
associate, the foulest crimes are generated in its progress; that which 
begins in anarchy ends in murder; and even murder itself, in the 
progress of outrage, may be only a preparation for the blacker hor¬ 
rors which are to ensue. 

Gentlemen, there remains one circumstance of peculiar atrocity, 
with which this matter is connected. In the various forms and as¬ 
sociations under which their designs have been conducted, it has been 
the policy of those people to administer oaths to the persons called 
upon by them, binding them to association and to secrecy. This 
offence is by law punished with death. The person who commits 
it must pay the forfeit of his life. The person taking such an oath 
is banished for ever from his country: the mere circumstance ol 
going to a magistrate and telling him of the oath being taken, will 
not absolve the party; the oath must be taken against his will; for 
if it be taken voluntarily, he is, notwithstanding such information, 
liable to be transported for life. Gentlemen, this is no new-devised 
punishment, it is the established law of the land; it has been so for 
many years; it has been provided, and wisely, by the legislature to 
meet the outrages which from time to time have infested this coun¬ 
try : there is no disproportion between this punishment and the 
crime; it strikes at the roots of morality and religion, and tends 
directly to destroy those principles, which are essential to civilized 
society. Gentlemen, an oath is the sanction, by which under the law 
of the country we call upon the Creator to attest the truth and purity 
of our words ; and this solemn sanction which our civil institution 
has borrowed from our religious code, is prostituted to bind together 
an association of traitors, robbers, and murderers. The name of the 
living God is appealed to for the purpose of witnessing and ratifying 


100 


plunket’s speeches. 


the infernal compact, by which these wretches league themselves 
against law and religion. Gentlemen, it produces a revulsion of 
every moral feeling to hear of such conduct; not that it is a viola¬ 
tion of the laws and usages of society, but, because it is an outrage¬ 
ous blasphemy against our Creator to call upon him to attest and 
sanctify the crimes of his creatures. 

Gentlemen, it is not necessary now to dwell upon the illegality of 
those associations, but while they profess to attack the property of 
the church, I cannot pass them by without a few observations. The 
tithes of the clergy of this country are their property; they are 
secured to them by the same laws which secure to every man amcngst 
you his estate or his property, whatever the description of it may be; 
the same laws and the same right by which any gentleman who hears 
me holds his estate, transmitted to him from his ancestors; the laws 
which secure the fruits of each man’s individual industry are the title 
by which the property of the clergy i3 secured to them ; and I do 
trust, gentlemen, that there is no man so selfish as to look to any 
system by which the property of one part of the community shall be 
protected, and that of another spoliated. If there be any man so 
selfish as to wish it, let no man think it can be done. Let a multi¬ 
tude be assembled under the empire of Threshers and Shakers , armed 
and arrayed in order to make head against the rank and property of 
the country, and what shall stop their career ? I wish my voice to 
extend to every man within these walls—to every man of sense and 
reflection. I would tell him, that there is no protection for rank, for 
property, for the state, but by resisting those disturbers, and making 
them feel the irresistible weight of the law. They say, they rise to 
redress grievances! But, gentlemen, there is a mode known to the 
constitution of redressing grievances; there is no law to prevent men 
from stating them; and there is a legal mode of claiming relief. 
This, I will say, that the constitution of the church is intimately 
connected with the constitution of the state ; it is a part of the same 
fabric, which has been handed down to us from our ancestors, and if 
there be anything imperfect in it, no reflecting man will approach it, 
for the purpose of alteration, without extreme caution; he will be 
careful in the attempt to remedy its imperfections not to affect the 
substance, or even the proportion, or beauty of the ornaments. But 
this task of reformation is undertaken. By whom ? By the dregs 
of the community—anonymous ruffians, who fear the face of day, 
whose title is founded in anarchy, and whose pretensions are enforced 
by robbery and murder! 

I cannot pass by another part of these associations ; I mean their 


THE THRESHERS. 


101 


attack upon the priests. 1 meddle not with religious rites; but I mean 
the attack which is made upon the support derived from the voluntary 
bounty, which the members of the Roman Catholic persuasion have 
been in the habit of giving to the ministers of their religion, for cele¬ 
brating the rites of that religion. It is not, that they say, we will 
not pay, for there is no law to compel them to pay. But they pro¬ 
claim this, that no man, who chooses to do so, shall dare to pay his 
priests their fees! For what purpose are these fees given ? They 
are given to obtain the rites of their religion : they flow from a sense 
of religion; they flow from voluntary bounty; they are enforced by 
no compulsion, the unfortunate men who receive them are armed with 
no law for their support; and yet these associations are formed—To do 
what? To rob the priest of his benedictions and his prayers ! Do these 
men, besmeared with blood and covered with crimes, imagine that the 
ceremonies of religion which are plundered from their clergy can give 
them a passport to a better world ? I cannot help feeling and de¬ 
ploring that this view of the subject suggests an apprehension, 
ihat the devisers of this plan could have had nothing less in their 
contemplation, than eradicating from the minds of those upon whom 
they could operate all sense of religion. Nothing but their hellish 
machinations could have devised such a scheme. If they expect that 
the people will be ripe to perpetrate crimes worse than these ; if they 
wish them to be the ready instruments of every design which is dia¬ 
bolical, there is no plan so effectual, as the extinction of every senti¬ 
ment of religion in the minds of the common people. What may be 
the form of the religion of the several classes of the people, I care 
not to inquire. If the principles of Christianity prevail; if the sense 
of obedience to a supreme ruler of the world; if the conviction of the 
existence of a future state, in which rewards and punishments are 
distributed, be kept alive in the minds of the people, they will never 
become the instruments for the commission of abominable crimes. 
But if these sentiments be extinguished ; if they shall be taught to 
cast off all regard for a future world, the ties which bind them to 
earth as well as to heaven are rent asunder. 

Gentlemen, we have had a miserable example in our own time. 
You may recollect, that not many years back, in a neighbouring coun¬ 
try, the most dreadful atrocities were committed; you recollect the 
overthrow of an ancient monarchy. That overthrow, deplorable as it 
w r as, was not the most dismal scene of the tragedy. The horrors of that 
untortunate revolution, in which the hands of the father were imbrued 
.n the blood of the son, in which all moral and social relations were 
rased in mutual warfare, could not be perpetrated uutil the senti- 


102 


PLUNKET'S SPEECHES. 


ments of religion were previously extinguished in the minds of th8 
people. Human nature was not outraged by gross and unexampled 
crimes until a solemn decree was framed, declaring that there was no 
God in heaven! What the consequences were, every man knows. 

But this I state, that as soon as a settled form of government was % 
established, it was found that atheism and infidelity, which were the 
ready instruments to throw down an ancient throne, were an insecure 
foundation for a new one; and one of the first acts of the founder 
of the new dynasty was to restore the consolations of religion to his 
thirsty and supplicating subjects. 

Gentlemen, it is no wonder, that those who searched after demo¬ 
cratic equality should be the foes of religion. Religion is the genuine 
equality of mankind. It is the poor man’s friend. During the trou¬ 
bles of this life it renders him content with the lot of inferiority, 
which is the condition of his nature, and in the last awful hour of 
existence it puts him upon a level with the highest and most 
exalted. 

Gentlemen, it is a melancholy and disheartening thing, that our 
wretched peasantry can be deluded by such arts, and that they 
should be thus imposed upon after such miserable examples. For 
half a century attempts have been made upon the infatuated people 
of this country. What has been the consequence ? Disgrace to 
the perpetrators; failure of their plans; ruin and death to them¬ 
selves. Yet what is the condition of the poor unhappy people of 
this country ? As soon as any disaffected mountebank appears, pro¬ 
claiming his laws, and imaginary benefits, they become the willing 
instruments of his schemes, and their own destruction. Is it possi¬ 
ble they can for a moment imagine that a great empire like this, 
armed with the law, protected by an army, with a regular adminis¬ 
tration of justice—are they so infatuated as to imagine, all these 
will yield to a few miscreants like those under whom they have en¬ 
listed themselves? It is therefore principally to undeceive these 
miserable wretches; to rescue them from the grasp of fiends, who 
are working their destruction, that the law is sent down here, at 
this unusual season, to speak its emphatic language. What the law 
is, I will tell you. What the consequence of infringing it is, you, 
gentlemen, will tell; and I cannot help feeling, that in the conse¬ 
quence of this commission, we may look to an end of the confusion 
and anarchy which has prevailed, and that the vicious may again 
be brought within the ordinary channels of subordination. 

Gentlemen, in speaking as I do, with indignation for those crimes, 

I feel compassion from the very bottom of my heart for the victims 


TIIE THRESHERS. 


103 


of them. Seeing the mischiefs which have been spreading in the 
country by the artifices oi miscreants, it does not surprise me at all, 
that many persons should be of opinion, that measures more summary 
should have been adopted, for the purpose of at once extinguishing 
these mischiefs. I am satisfied that the opinion of such men is dic¬ 
tated by a feeling of the truest regard tor the interests of their coun¬ 
try ; of genuine compassion and mercy towards the unfortunate delin¬ 
quents themselves. But yet, my lords and gentlemen of the jury, I 
trust that the government ot the country will ultimately acquire credit 
lrom those who entertained the opinion I have mentioned, for the 
course which has been adopted in the present instance. The feeling 
01 the government has been, that the insult which has been given to 
the law’s of the country is best vindicated by those laws themselves. 
The persons whom we are now called upon to cope with, do not com¬ 
pose multitudes too strong for the arm of the law. It is not an as¬ 
sembly daring to stand before exertions of the magistracy, but it is a 
lawless association of men, who find their safety in their obscurity. 
And I cannot help feeling a confidence, that when the victims of delu¬ 
sion shall have been undeceived; when they find that the law is ade¬ 
quate to their punishment; that the laity make a common cause with 
the clergy ; when they see atonement made to the laws by the speedy 
and energetic administration of justice, now in progress amongst you— 
I say, I feel a confidence, that after they have seen the array of this 
country drawn up for the investigation of their crimes ; after they 
have seen the assemblage, this day, of every man of rank, character, 
and property, feeling their interests united with those, who have been 
the subject of lawless attack ; that the most salutary consequences 
will be experienced, and that these people will at length be convinced, 
ti.at when they dare to raise their hands against the laws of their 
country, those laws will be found to have weight enough to fall down 
upon and crush them. What, gentlemen, would it not be a miserable 
state of our country, to suppose that, armed as we are by the law- 
supported as we are by the aid of every gentleman in the country, 
and with an armed force, if such be necessary; that associations of 
men, whose names are not known—of no rank, property, or station— 
could not be put down, without doing away, for a time at least, the 
ordinary constitution of the land ? If the time should unfortunately 
come, when, what is now a tumultuous rising, should assume an aspect 
of a different nature ; if ever, which G(>d forbid! those scenes shall 
be renewed, which we formerly witnessed; if treason shall rear its 
head in the country, and supersede the law, these wretches will have 
to sink under the tide of ruin, which will be let in upon them. But 


104 


plunket’s speeches. 


I trust that no visitation of that kind will occur*; but that, with the 
ready assistance ot the government, and the aid of every loyal man, 
we shall be able to bring puuishment upon the guilty, and that the 
law will be strong enough to wrestle with and put down these dis¬ 
turbers of the public peace. 

Gentlemen, I shall say only a few words more. The laws in be¬ 
ing, of which I shall make a short statement, will appear to every 
one, particularly calculated to meet the outrages which at present 
exist. They are laws which have not been recently introduced. For 
half a century, the country has been visited with partial insurrections: 
during a portion of the reign of the late king, and during the entire 
of the present, laws have been enacted calculated to meet these 
crimes. These laws are still in full force and operation. If the 
insurgents assemble with arms ; if they assume any particular deno¬ 
mination, or wear any badge, to the terror of his majesty’s subjects, 
by that mere act of assembling, though no further act be done, they 
are punishable by law. The magistrates are authorised to disperse 
and apprehend them. If they resist, and any be killed, the magis¬ 
trate is indemnified ; and if he has just cause to suspect that any 
person can give information respecting such outrages, he may sum¬ 
mon the person, examine him, bind him in a recognizance to appear, 
and commit him, in case he refuses. I wish this was generally 
known, that if any man meet such an assembly, he is called upon to 
disperse it, and to apprehend the persons assembled; and if death 
unfortunately ensue, the magistrate is indemnified. 

The magistrate is also armed with extraordinary powers to pre¬ 
serve the public peace. He is entitled to call for the assistance of 
every man in the county. The power which the law has, in ordinary 
cases, intrusted to the sheriff, that of raising the posse comitatus, is, 
in this instance, given to every magistrate ; and if any man refuses 
to give this assistance, he is guilty of a misdemeanor. Persons not 
entitled by law to carry arms, are liable to have then* houses searched, 
and the law protects the person making the search. If any persons, 
tumultuously assembled, shall assault, or injure the habitation or 
property of another, they are punishable with death ; every person 
who administers an oath, whatever the nature or purport of it may 
be, binding the person taking it, to be of a particular party or asso¬ 
ciation, is punishable with death ; any person who voluntarily takes 
such oath, is liable to be banished lor ever; and he is not to suppose 
that after voluntarily taking such an oath, the mere circumstauce of 
going to a magistrate and telling him, will protect him ; two circum¬ 
stances must concur to save him from punishment: first, that he was 


TITE THRr.S"tt?5?. 


105 

compelled to take the oath; and secondly, that he gave immediate 
information of his being so compelled; so that here are abundant 
provisions for the punishment of these offences. But, gentlemen, it 
has been industriously circulated that these laws are expired : I tell 
you, and those who hear me, what was stated yesterday from the 
high authority of the bench, that these laws are in full force and 
existence ; and every man joining in unlawful confederacies is liable 
to pay the penalty inflicted by those laws. 

Gentlemen, 1 have also to inform you, that under the statute of 
the 15th and 16th of his present majesty’s reign, commonly called 
“The Whiteboy Act,” any person who harbours, conceals, or gives 
assistance to any person concerned in such outrages, is as much guilty 
as the person so concealed; and any person who supplies horses, arms, 
or ammunition, for the purpose of these confederacies, is liable to 
forfeit his life. Gentlemen, armed with these laws, which have been 
found competent to put down insurrections, as alarming as the pre¬ 
sent, with the honourable zeal and activity of the magistrates,, which 
you may confidently look to, and with the sincere desire of government 
to protect the loyal, and reclaim the guilty, are we to despair of the 
laws being able to cope with the mischiefs, and not to look for the 
restoration of tranquillity and peace ? I cannot so persuade myscli, 
and I am not uneasy as to the result. Gentlemen, with regard to 
the particular case now before you, it will appear that the prisoners, 
on the night of the 2nd of September last, with many others, attacked 
the house of Peter O’Neill, at Cartron Watts in this county. He had 
been audacious enough to say, he would pay the dues which he had 
been accustomed to pay; he was not prepared at the instance of these 
legislators to renounce his obedience to the laws ; he said he would pay 
as he had formerly done; this was high treason by their law: they re¬ 
paired to his house; they broke it open; they dragged him naked 
from his bed; they asked him for money; that is part of their sys¬ 
tem for redress of grievances ; he had ouly one tenpenny piece ; he 
had no more ; but he was desired to send more to the house of a 
person whom they named, but who is not now upon trial; they took 
him away naked, and one of the party had an instrument for carding 
wool, with which they inflicted punishment upon him, by severely 
excoriating his back; the prisoners will be identified by O’Neill, his 
v,ife, and son, who plainly saw them; so that there are three wit¬ 
nesses to the transaction. It these facts shall be proved, there can 
be no doubt of the melancholy necessity which will be imposed upon 
ton. O’Neill gave information to Mr. Soden, the magistrate, and 
exhibited his back, which was excoriated with the torture which had 


plummet's speeches. 


10G 

been inflicted upon him; so that with regard to this being a case within 
the statute no question can arise ; but if the evidence be not clear 
and satisfactory, no sense of danger or alarm should induce you to 
And a verdict against the prisoners. It will, in that case, be your 
duty to acquit them ; but if you have no doubt of their guilt, I will 
not humble you or myself by supposing, that any of you would 
shrink from a firm and manly discharge of his duty. 

The prisoners were acquitted. Several of the other leading prosecutions of 
the commission failed; but in Mayo, where that renowned toparch, the Right 
Hon. Denis Browne, had pioneered the operations of the commission, there 
were about a dozen of the Threshers hanged. 


CATHOLIC RELIEF. 

April 9, 1807. 

Pluxket, who had accepted office from Pitt, remained attorney-general to the 
ministry of •* all the talents,” and was returned to parliament by their influence 
for Midhurst, a little borough in Sussex, for which Fox and Sheil have also 
sat. 

The Catholic question had lain dormant since the Union. The King had 
become frantically hostile to their claims. Pitt, on retiring from office in 1801, 
sent word to the Irish Catholics, through Dr. Troy, the archbishop of Dublin, 
that “the leading part of his majesty’s ministers, finding insurmountable 
obstacles to the bringing forward measures of concession to the Catholic body, 
had felt it impossible to continue in office under the inability to propose it with 
the circumstances necessary to carrying the measure with all its advantages 
and he held out hopes that he would never return to office unless on the condi¬ 
tion of being allowed to redress their claims. Nothing was attempted in the 
ministry of Addington, and Pitt returned to office in 1804, and died at the 
height of his contest with Napoleon, without a thought of Ireland, which had 
been half deluded and half crushed into a state of torpor. At last, when Lord 
Grenville formed an administration containing so many statesmen pledged to 
support their claims, the Catholic committee began to agitate. Yet their auspices 
were gloomy enough. Pitt was dead, and Pitt might well be believed in these 
days to be the only British minister strong enough to bend the bigotry of King and 
parliament. The councils of the Catholics were rather distracted. Many of 
the bishops and most of the gentry were for patience, and prudence, and all 
possible trust in the King’s kindness and the ministry’s charity. John Keogh 
had grown suddenly old and wayward; now violent out of time, now over 
cautious. A new era was dawning, of which the brave old tribune could not 
read the signs. Catholic emancipation was destined never to come until the 
people of Ireland had proved themselves stronger than King and Lords and 
Commons. Twenty years of dreary agitation lay before the persecuted race; 
and from this time forth a young Kerry barrister, named Daniel O’Connell, 
became the Moses, the man of men among them. 


CATHOLIC RELIEF. 


107 


Lord Grenville was quite sincere in his friendliness to the Catholic claims, but 
neither he nor one of his party dare attempt what Pitt would have done, had he 
done anything—that is, at once admit the Catholics to political power, and endow 
their clergy, on the basis of a concordat admitting to the crown a right of veto 
in the election of bishops. A Whig ministry, however well disposed, could only 
attempt the same work by insignificant and dilatory instalments. Even Sheridan, 
with his hot Celtic heart—and in opposition too—declared, at the close of the ses¬ 
sion of 1807, that his notion of Catholic emancipation was to conciliate the 
peasantry, by relieving them of tithes: to admit the Catholic gentry to be 
judges and generals and members of parliament, was like “ decorating the top¬ 
masts of a ship when there were ten feet of water in the hold, or putting a laced 
hat on a man who had not a shoe to his foot.” Lord Grenville attempted very 
little, but his fate was a warning to the Whigs and a terror to the Catholics for 
many a long year. He lost office for merely attempting to assimilate the state 
of the law in England to the Irish Relief Act of 1793. 

In Ireland the law allowed Catholics to hold all military commissions under 
the rank of colonel, but the law enabled the king to grant such commissions only 
in Ireland. The Whigs attempted to extend this provision to the entire empire, 
and to all ranks in the army. To this effect, Lord Howick, afterwards the great 
Earl Grey, prepared a bill. At first the king made no opposition to its introduc¬ 
tion. At o second audience, he expressed, to Lord Howick, a general dislike and 
disapprobation of the measure; but as he did not continue the subject with Lord 
Grenville, who entered the closet immediately after Lord Howick, they pre¬ 
sumed they might proceed with the second reading of the bill. A few days 
afterwards, however, he became so furiously obstinate, that the ministry were 
obliged first to postpone, and finally to withdraw it altogether. Even this 
however was not enough for the wrong-headed old bigot—his majesty’s servants 
in the cabinet must pledge themselves never under any circumstances to recom¬ 
mend a redress of the Catholic claims. This was too much. “ All the talents” 
retired. The Duke of Portland came in with a thundering no-Popery ciy, and 
the Catholics learned a little more of Castlereagh’s sincerity by seeing him in 
office. Parliament, was dissolved in the mid-summer. “ The Church in danger” 
sounded at every British hustings, and one of the most bigoted Protestant par¬ 
liaments that had sat in England since the Revolution was returned. 

Before the dissolution, long explanations were given in both houses on the 
causes of the change o! administration; and on the adjourned debate, Plunket 
spoke the only speech he delivered in parliament during the short period for 
which he represented Midhurst. 


Mr. Plunket declared that he was not one of these men, whom an 
hon. baronet (Sir T. Turton) had supposed were anxious to load the 
persons of his majesty’s new ministers with obloquy and reproach. 
He was sure that his majesty was the kind father of his people, and 
had acted only on the representations of others. that the church 
was in danger. Those, however, who had been the foremost to set 
up this cry, and to sound this alarm, had thrown upon him a great 
weight of responsibility. It was incumbent? upon them to prove the 
existence of that danger. He had yet to learn, and the house had 
yet to learn, how and from what quarter danger was to be apprehended 


108 


plunket’s speeches. 


to the Established Church. No man felt more strongly than he did, 
the advantages to both countries from the connexion with Ireland ; 
no man wished more, that that connexion should be finally cemented, 
and no man was more attached to the Protestant establishment of 
Ireland, which he conceived to be no less important than the con¬ 
nexion itself. If, then, he could see any ground for supposing the 
Protestant establishment was in danger, he would be as ready as any 
man to raise his voice in its support, and to ring the alarm to the 
country. He was at a loss, however, now to discover from what 
quarter this danger was threatened ; and it did appear to him, that 
men who, upon such slight grounds, or rather upon no grounds at all 
could come forward and wantonly disturb the peace of that country, 
did not show themselves to be men possessed of such discretion as 
should be expected from those to whom the administration of the af¬ 
fairs of the empire were to be committed at a crisis like the present. 
After the measure had been abandoned, still the cry was artfully kept 
up that the church was in danger. He should therefore beg leave 
to call the attention of the house to the act of 1793, and he would 
first observe that that Irish act did not apply merely to Irish Catho¬ 
lics, but to all Catholics serving in the army of Ireland. Since the 
Union, however, there no longer existed any separate army of Ire¬ 
land, nor any separate establishments. But before the Union, 
English Catholics, if serving in the army of Ireland, were entitled 
to the benefit of the act of 1793. At present, by the law of the land, 
the king is empowered to grant commissions in Ireland to Catholics, 
and it would be certainly a strange thing to tell those Catholics, that 
although they were very fit to be trusted in Ireland, yet they were 
not fit to be trusted in any other part of the world. If the artful 
endeavours to keep up the cry of the church being in danger had 
been confined to placards stuck up against the walls, or to Protestant 
songs and religious choruses, perhaps those endeavours would not 
merit any severe reprehension ; but he had been informed of other 
attempts, which he thought were deserving of more serious attention. 
The peace of the University of Dublin had lately been disturbed with 
attempts from a very high quarter to procure an address to his ma- 
iesty, stating that the church and the Protestant religion was in 
danger. Two letters had been written to the university by its chan¬ 
cellor (the Duke of Cumberland) to procure such an address. The 
first produced but very little effect; but in the second, the royal 
duke to whom he alluded stated (as he was informed) that such a 
step would be the only means of recommendiug that university to 
the favour of his majesty* He considered that nothing could bo 


CATHOLIC RELIEF. 


109 


more unconstitutional than this mode of using his majesty’s name to 
procure an address or petitions to parliament. He thought, however, 
that it would be necessary to consider the time at which such exer¬ 
tions were made to get a petition from the University of Dublin. It 
was either after the bill had been abandoned that it was endeavoured 
to raise the ferment and outcry, or it was in contemplation of its 
serving the new ministers. If the attempt was made before his ma¬ 
jesty had exhibited the slightest disapprobation, it was evident how far 
the machinations of secret advisers operated; if it was after the bill 
was abandoned, it was equally evident that it was then the purpose 
of effecting a change of administration, which was stated to have 
been produced by other causes. He could not state at present the 
date of this last letter; but he must say generally, that whether it 
was before the bill was abandoned or immediately after, it equally 
showed what sort of engines had been set to work to spread the 
alarm that the church and the Protestant religion were in danger. 
When he heard the name of religion mentioned, he felt that every¬ 
thing that was most dear to his heart was touched; but when the 
name of religion was so dear to him, it was from its intrinsic value, 
from its dictating and concentrating all the amiable charities of life, 
b om its breathing the spirit of toleration and mutual affection, and 
not as being the rallying word of a persecuting party. He knew 
there were many in that house to whom true religion was dear, and 
he therefore called upon those who possessed it in their hearts, and 
who did not use it as a watch-word for persecution, to show it in 
their votes in favour of a system of toleration and benevolence to 
all classes of his majesty’s loyal subjects. He should, then, call the 
attention of the house to the pledge which was required from th* 
late ministers. This pledge he considered in the highest degree dan¬ 
gerous and unconstitutional, and tending directly to substitute secret 
w hispers in the place of the responsible ministers and advisers to the 
crown. He conceived it of the most dangerous consequences to 
have it supposed that the ministers of this country could have one 
duty to their master and sovereign, which was directly opposite to 
their duty to their country. He conceived that this particular pledge 
would compromise the safety of Ireland. The state of the Catholics 
of Ireland was this : during the course of his majesty’s reign, many 
c -ncessions had been made to them, and many of the advantages to 
which they had been entitled had been granted them. In conse¬ 
quence of this, many of them had arrived to wealth, and honour, and 
(li-tinction. It would be asked by many—Ought not this content them ? 
‘a mi ought they press f r anything m re ? It was uot, however, ia 


110 


plunket’s speeches. 


human nature to be so contented. He should appeal to the indivi¬ 
dual feelings of the members of that house, who all of them enjoyed 
wealth, honour, and distinctions in society—if they were to be told, 
you ought to be well satisfied with those advantages, and should be 
content not to be admitted to the full participation of the constitu¬ 
tion, would they be so contented ? They would not: it was not in hu¬ 
man nature that they should. 

The Catholic gentry of Ireland were now in that situation of ex¬ 
clusion, and anxiously wished to be received into the bosom of the 
constitution. The Catholic priesthood were at present unpaid and 
degraded, and they wished also to be put into a more respectable 
situation. The Catholic population of Ireland, which was by far the 
greatest part of its inhabitants, also felt themselves degraded by the 
humiliation of their nobility, their gentry, and their priesthood. It 
was impossible that they should not feel in that manner; and it was 
impolitic to disappoint their natural and just feelings and expecta¬ 
tions. Such was the actual situation of Ireland : he would not pre¬ 
tend to point out the specibc remedy; but this he would say, that 
it was impossible for Ireland to continue much longer in the state in 
which it was at present; it might be thrown into a worse state, but 
every one that was acquainted with its actual situation, and he would 
appeal to the Tight honourable gentleman who was lately secretary 
for that country (Mr. Elliot), must know and agree that it was im¬ 
possible that it should remain long as it is at present. We might 
as well shut our eyes, and then say there was no danger, as remain 
longer in indifference and apathy respecting the situation of Ireland. 
The pledges that were demanded from the late ministers would have 
a most important effect upon the situation of that country. The 
ministers were to be absolutely prevented from even proposing 
anything in favour of its population. Every paltry corporation, the 
.owest individual in the empire, had by the constitution a right to 
present his petition to the king or to the legislature.; but now, for 
the first time, it is stated that four millions of the people of Ireland 
shall be debarred of the right of petitioning, or, what is equivalent, 
they are told that no petitions they may present will be paid any 
attention to. This was not only a novelty, but a prodigy, an alarm¬ 
ing appearance in the constitution, and which seemed to portend 
the greatest danger. This general interdiction appeared more like 
some divine chastisement to a people, than like any measure which 
human policy could have adopted. What must have been the effect 
ot those transactions which have recently taken place ? The Catho¬ 
lics of Ireland would be given to understand that the royal ears wer« 


THE CATHOLIC CLAIMS. 


Ill 


hermetically sealed against them ; that the ministers of the crown 
were bound by some pledge, expressed or implied, never to propose 
auy redress for them, but always to resist their claims. This con¬ 
sideration tilled him with the most serious apprehensions ; and when 
lie said so, he must take notice of an expression that had fallen from 
an honourable baronet (Sir T. Turton), that those who prophesied 
loose dangers intended to act in sucu a manner as to bring their 
prophecies to their accomplishment. Nothing could be more un¬ 
parliamentary or indecent than this observation. He should not, 
however, be prevented by it from expressing fully those apprehen- 
s ons which he felt. He had in Ireland so many dear pledges, that 
no man could suspect him of lightly wishing to offer any observa- 
ti ms which could tend to disturb its tranquillity or endanger its 
security; he knew, however, that there were many fiends and demons 
waiting to seize on every opportunity to effect a separation of the 
two countries, and he conceived that they would take every advan¬ 
tage of the discontent which the Catholics might feel. He felt that 
we were walking per ignes suppositos cinere doloso: he did not 
mean to say that the danger was immediate; it might be smoothed 
over for a year or two, but it would continue to keep Ireland the 
most vulnerable part of the empire. If a measure of such unneces¬ 
sary outrage as this was persevered in, he thought it might shake 
to the centre the connexion between the two countries, and the pros¬ 
perity, if not the existence of the empire. 


THE CATHOLIC CLAIMS. 

February 25, IS 13. 

Plukket was again returned to parliament by Trinity College, in 1812, after 
an interval of five years. 

The parliamentary progress of the Catholic question meantime may be told 
in a few words. In 1808, Grattan proposed the petition of the Irish Catholics, 
and moved that it be referred to a committee of the whole house; he was tU . 
■bated by a majority of 153. Again, in 1810, he was beaten on the sail*) 
motion by a majority of 104 ; and in 1812 by a majority of 85. In the House 
of Lords, Lord Donoughmore, who had charge of the petition there, was beafe’i 
at the same dates by majorities averaging 80 votes. The question made progress, 
nevertheless. The most eminent English statesmen then living, or lately dead, 
Pitt, Fox, Burke, Tierney, Windham, Sheridan, Canning, Castlereagli, were 
iwsitively pledged to sustain it. So the prince regent was also supposed to be. 
The king’s insanity had settled one great obstacle. The pamphlets and debates, 
—and particularly Sir John Cox Hippisley’s documentary collections and par¬ 
liamentary papers upon Catholic doctrine and practice touching the civil autho¬ 
rity and sects without the pale of the church—had disabused the English public 


PLUNKETS SPEECHES. 


i 12 

ra nd of much prejudice. But the most powerful argument of all was the fact 
that the li ish Catholics had become a formidable political power, and every day 
grew more determined in their tone, more coherent and organised in action 
Napoleon Bonaparte and then Daniel O’Connell were the two weightiest troubles 
of the imperial minister. 

At last the scale turned a little. On the 22nd of June, 1812, Mr. Canning 
moved that the house would, early in the next session, take into its considera¬ 
tion the state of the laws affecting his majesty’s Human Catholic subjects, with 
a view to a final and conciliatory adjustment compatible with the Protestant 
constitution in church and state. A brilliant debate ensued, and the motion was 
carried by a majority of 235 to 106 votes. 

Accordingly, in the following February, Grattan proposed a committee of the 
whole house in the terms of Canning’s motion. B^fjre he rose, Mr. Yorke 
called on the clerk to read from the Bill of Bights the passages guaranteeing a 
Protestant conslituti >n i t church and state. Grattan legan by declaring his 
opinion that these very passages might and ought to be contained in the pre¬ 
amble of any bill for the relief of the Catholics. His speech throughout was 
a singularly clear, simple, and earnest argument. Exception was taken to the 
fact that he seemed to speak of Ireland as a distinct and independent country — 
a lapse that might well happen to the man who had once made Ireland a 
nation Plunket spoke early in the debate—after Mr. Bankes, who had taken 
Grattan to task for the use of such terms in an imperial parliament, and had 
referred to the recent controversy between the Pope and Napoleon, as a,proof 
that the V ,pacy was still inspired by a spirit of utter intolerance. 

A geneiation of Irish Catholics has grown to manhood since emancipation, 
and lost the memory of the old bondage; so, many readers may find it diffi¬ 
cult to understand the exact bearings of the masterly argument in which 
Plunket pleaded the rights of our fathers. I may therefore state in a 
few sentences the condition of the then existing penal laws. In many 
particulars, the laws against Catholics differed in the three kingdoms; 
ir Scotland they were most severe, even touching freedom of worship. In 
Ireland they had been relaxed so as to recognise full freedom of worship, the 
right to practise professions, to act under the royal commission in peace and war. 
lo serve on juries, and to exercise the parliamentary franchise. But the acts o! 
real grievance affecting the general body of the Catholics throughout the three 
kingdoms, and especially in England, were: 1. The 13th Charles II., com¬ 
monly called the Corporation Act, by which they were excluded from offices in 
cities and corporations. 2. The 25th Charles II., commonly called the Test 
Act, by which they were excluded from all civil and military offices—unless in 
the cases in which the test was abolished by the Irish act of 1793. 3. The 

80th Charles II., by which Catholics were interdicted from sitting in either 
nouse of parliament. An act of William and Mary, operative iu England, preven¬ 
ted the use of the parliamentary franchise. The mutiny and admiralty laws 
enabled officers to compel Catholic soldiers and sailors to attend Protestant worship. 
There were many other statutes, especially in England and Scotland, unrepealed, 
but practically inoperative. The machinery of exclusion was either the oath of 
? upremacy, declaring the king’s civil and ecclesiastical pre-e ninence within the 
r :alm, or the sacramental test of taking the Protestant communion before the accep¬ 
tance of office, or a declaration denying transubstantiation, and denouncing tae 
invocation of saints and the sacrifice of the mass as idolatrous. In parliament 
the oath and declaration were both taken. Whenever Catholics were admitte i 
te office, they disclaimed upon oath the temporal authority of the Pope outside 


THE CATHOLIC CLAIMS. 


113 


hi3 own states, and the doctiine that the infallibility of his holiness was an articla 
uf faith. 

Mr. Speaker, I am induced to rise, at so early a period of the debate, 
for the purpose of obviating the mis-statement (certainly uninten¬ 
tional) of the expressions and sentiments of my right honourable 
friend Mr. Grattan, winch has been made by the honourable gentle¬ 
man who has last spoktn. My right honourable friend did not call 
Great Britain a foreign country; and even if such an expression 
had accidentally been used by him, the uniform tenor of his opinions 
and of his language in this house might have suggested to the 
honourable member the propriety of abstaining from a verbal criticism 
upon it. My right honourable friend unites to the enthusiasm of au 
Irish patriot the comprehensive views of a statesman aud a legislator; 
and his affection for his native country, to which his life has been de¬ 
voted, has expanded into love of the general weal, and zeal for the 
glory of the empire. In every sentiment which he has uttered I 
most cordially concur. My right honourable friend has not been so 
absurd as to propose to re-enact the bill of rights and the act of 
settlement; but absurd and extravagant calumnies having, with no 
laudable industry, been propagated, as if the present motion were in¬ 
tended to invade the church and to overturn the state, my right 
honourable friend has placed in the front of his resolution a denial 
of the calumny. 

The honourable gentleman has said there is nothing specific or in¬ 
telligible in the motion or in the statement. The motion appears to 
me to be perfectly distinct, and perfectly intelligible. It proposes to 
remove all the civil disabilities which affect a great portion of our 
fellow subjects, on account of their religion; offering, at the same 
time, to accompany the measure with every security which may be 
required for the protection of the Protestant interest. This seems 
not very difficult to comprehend; but I own I do not find it equally 
easy to ascertain the meaning of the honourable gentleman himself. 
In some part of his argument he relies on objections, which, if they 
have any weight against the measure now, must always operate; in 
other parts, he insinuates as an opinion that the objections are only 
accidental or temporary. Why the honourable member voted for the 
measure in the last parliament, and intends to oppose it in this, seems 
to require some further explanation than he has thought proper to 
afford. The intolerant declarations of the Pope, which lie has re¬ 
ferred to, were surely as strong an argument at that time as they 
tre now. The honourable gentleman seems to have spoken with an 
anxiety to anticipate what is to be said by a righf houourable friend 


plunket’s speeches. 


1U 

of his who is hereafter to express his opinions ; and he has alluded 
to the proposal of some plan which, he fears, will not be acceptable 
to the petitioners, and which he himself does not approve of; or, if 
he does, why he cannot agree to the going into a committee for the 
purpose of considering it, the house are left to conjecture. 

Much has been said of the question of right. It appears to me 
to be a very unnecessary metaphysical discussion, and one whicli 
cannot have any practical application in the present instance. In 
the same sense in which religious toleration is a right, a due share 
of political power is a right. Both must yield to the paramount in¬ 
terests of society, if such interests require it. Neither can be justi¬ 
fiably withheld, unless their inconsistency with the public interest is 
llearly established. But in the present case the question does not, 
w any respect, arise; for we have already admitted the Roman 
Catholics to substantial power, and what we seek to exclude them 
from is honour. The privileges which are withheld are impotent as 
protections to the state, but most galling and provoking to the party 
who is excluded. No candid mind can hesitate to admit that these 
exclusions must be severely felt as subjects of grievance, and griev¬ 
ances of the most insulting kind. That the man of the first eminence 
at the bar should be prevented from acting as one of his majesty’s 
counsel, or from sitting on the bench of justice; that the gallant 
officer who has distinguished himself in the battles of his country, 
when his heart is beating high with the love of honourable fame, 
should be stopped in his career, and see his companions in arms 
raised above him, to lead his countrymen to victory and glory, must 
be felt as wounding and humiliating. In this house, does it require 
argument to show that exclusion from parliament must be considered 
as a privation and indignity ? What assembles us here ? The 
honest ambition of serving our country—the pride of abiding by 
honourable engagements—or motives perhaps of a less elevated de¬ 
scription. Whatever they may be, honourable and dignified, or 
otherwise, they subsist in their minds as much as in ours; and 
though the elective franchise, which has been granted to the Irish 
Catholic, gives him a substantial representation, yet the exclusion is 
calculated to operate as a severe and humiliating disability ; and the 
more humiliating, because it is a mark of inferiority branded on the 
Catholic, merely for the purpose of marking inferiority ! 

The topic that toleration admits of one consideration aud political 
power of another has little application to this case, even if it were 
true; for here it must be contended that rank, and station, and 
honour are not the proper appendages of wealth, and knowledge, and 


THE CATHOLIC CLAIMS. 


115 


education, and of everything which constitutes political and moral 
strength. In every system of human policy the few must govern 
the many, but, putting military force out of the case, their legitimate 
government must arise trorn their superiority in wealth and know¬ 
ledge ; if, therefore, you exclude the wealthy and the educated froi* 
the government of the state, you throw into the scale of the many 
the only weight which could have preserved the balance of the state 
itself. This is universally true; but when you reject the opulent 
and the educated, on account of a condition which they have in 
common with the many, you add the attraction of politics and party 
to the operation of general and moral causes ; and, if the principle 
of exclusion be a religious one, you organize not merely the princi¬ 
ples of revolution, but of revolution furious and interminable. Put 
the policy of the separation of political rank from property aud edu¬ 
cation, in the extreme case of their total division, or. in any inter¬ 
mediate degree, the conclusion is equally true, that the attempt so 
to separate, e.-tablishes a principle, not of government, but of the dis¬ 
solution of all government! So sensible of this truth were our ances- 
t i s, that when they saw, or thought they saw, a necessity for dis¬ 
honouring the Roman Catholic, they adopted, as a necessary conse- 
queuce, the policy of impoverishing and barbarizing him.. When they 
ce ^raded him, they felt that their only safety was to steep him in 
poverty and ignorance. Their policy, good or bad, was consistent— 
the means had a diabolical fitness for their end. Is it not a perfect 
corollary to this proposition, is it not the legitimate converse of this 
truth, that, if you re-admit them to wealth and to knowledge, you 
must restore them to ambition and to honour? What have we done? 
We have trod back their steps; we have rescued the Catholics from 
the code, which formed at once their servitude and our safety. And 
we fancy we can continue the exclusion, from civil station, which 
superinduced that code. Theirs was a necessity, real or fancied, but 
a consistent system; we pretend no necessity; we have voluntarily 
abdicated the means of safety, and we wilfully and uselessly continue 
the causes of danger. The time to have paused, was before we heaved 
<Vom those sons of earth, the mountains which the wisdom or the 
terrors of our ancestors had heaped upon them ; but we have raised 
them up and placed them erect—are we prepared to hurl them down 
and bury them again ? 

Where is the madman to propose it ? Where is the idiot who 
imagines that they can remain as they are ? The state of the Catho¬ 
lics of Ireland is, in this respect, unparalleled by anything in ancient 
or modern history. They are not slaves, as some of their absurd 


116 


plunket’s speeches. 


advocates call them, but freemen, possessing substantially the same 
oolitical rights with their Protestant brethren, and with all the other 
subjects of the empire : that is, possessed of all the advantages which 
can be derived from the best laws, administered in the best man¬ 
ner, of the most free and most highly civilized country in the world. 
Do you believe that such a body, possessed of such a station, can 
submit to contumely and exclusion ? That they will stand behind 
your chair and wait upon you at the public banquet ? The less 
valuable, in sordid computation, the privilege, the more marked the 
insult in refusing it, and the more honourable the anxiety for posses¬ 
sing it 1 Miserable and unworthy wretches would they be if they 
ceased to aspire to it; base and dangerous hypocrites if they dis¬ 
sembled their wishes ; formidable instruments of domestic or foreign 
tyranny if they did not entertain them ! The liberties of England 
would nor, for half a century, remain proof against the contact and 
contagion of four millions of opulent and powerful subjects, who dis¬ 
regarded the honours of the state, and felt utterly uninterested in the 
constitution. 

In coming forward, therefore, with this claim of honourable am¬ 
bition, they at once afford you the best pledge of their sincerity, 
and the most satisfactory evidence of their title. They claim the 
benefit of the ancient vital principle of the constitution, that the 
honours of the state should be open to the talents and to the virtues 
of all its members. The adversaries of the measure invert the order 
of all civilized society. They have made the Catholics an aristocracy, 
and they would treat them as a mob; they give to the lowest of 
the rabble, if he is a Protestant, what they refuse to the head of the 
peerage, if he is a Catholic. They shut out my Lord Fingal from 
the state, and they make his footman a member of it; and this 
strange confusion of all social order, they dignify with the name of 
the British constitution ; and the proposal to consider the best and 
most conciliatory mode ot correcting it, they cry down as a danger¬ 
ous and presumptuous innovation. 

Sir, the Catholics propose no innovation. They ask for an equal 
share, as fellow-subjects, in the constitution, as they fiud it; in that 
constitution, in whose original stamina they had an uudisputed right, 
before there was a reformation and before there was a revolution, and 
before the existence of the abuses which induced the necessity of either. 
They desire to bear its burdens, to share its dangers, to participate its 
glory, and to abide its fate. They bring, as an offering, their hearts 
and hands, their lives and fortunes, but they desire also the privileg® 
of bringing with them their consciences, their religion, and their 


THE CATHOLTC CLAIMS. 117 

honour, without which they would be worthless and dangerous asso¬ 
ciates. 

The position, therefore, to be maintained, by those who say that 
the first principles of the constitution are in apposition to their claim, 
is rather a critical one. They must show why it is that a Roman 
Catholic may vote for a member to sit in parliament, and yet may 
not himself be a member of it; why he may be the most powerful 
and wealthy subject in the realm, and the greatest landed proprietor, 
and yet may not fill the lowest office, in the meanest town upon his 
estates; why he may be the first advocate at the bar, and be inca¬ 
pable of acting as one of the counsel of his sovereign; why he may 
be elector, military officer, grand juror, corporator, magistrate, in 
Ireland, where the danger, if any, is immense, and why none of 
them in England, where the causes of apprehension are comparatively 
trifling and insignificant. Resides all this, arguing as they do, that 
the Roman Catholic religion necessarily includes hostility to the state, 
on the very points which, by the oaths which the Roman Catholics 
have taken, are solemnly disavowed, they must show the safety of 
harbouring, in the bosom of the state, and admitting to its essential 
and substantial benefits, a body of men whose only title to admission 
has been peijury; a body of men who, in addition to religious opi¬ 
nions, inconsistent with our particular constitution, have violated the 
solemn obligations which biud man to man, and therefore are un¬ 
worthy ol being admitted into any society in which the sacred prin¬ 
ciples of social intercourse are respected. 

Sir, if these things are so, the petitions of the public should be, 
not to be protected against the dangers which are to come, but to 
be rescued from those which have already been incurred. Nay, 
more, if oaths are no longer to be regarded, we should not rely on 
the vain securities which our ancestors have resorted to, and which 
consist of oaths, and only of oaths; but we should devise some new 
means of proving their religion by the testimony of others, and of 
chaining them down to it, without the possibility of disowning or 
escaping from it. 

Hut, let us examine, somewhat more accurately, these supposed 
principles of public policy which oppose an insuperable bar to ths 
admission of the Roman Catholic. They join issue with you on this 
point. So far as concession is inconsistent with the true principles 
of the constitution, the safety of the Established Church, and of the 
Protestant throne, they admit that they are entitled to nothing; so 
tar as it is not inconsistent, they claim to be entitled to every thing. 
Let it be shown that these great foundations of our liberties and oi 


118 


plunket’s speeches. 


•our civil and ecclesiastical polity are their enemies, and they must 
yield in silence. They must receive it as the doom of fate; it most 
be submitted to, as part of the mysterious system of Providence, 
which, whilst it has embarked us in an awful struggle for the preser¬ 
vation of its choicest blessings, has ordained that, in this struggle, 
we may not unite the hearts and affections of our people. We must 
cherish the hope that the same incomprehensible wisdom, which at 
once impels us to this mighty contest and forbids us to use the means 
of success, may work out our safety by methods of its own. If it 
can be made to appear that the imperious interests of our country 
pronounce, from necessity, this heavy and immitigable sentence upon 
millions of its subjects, I trust that they will learn submission, and 
not embitter their hopeless exclusion by the miseries of discontent 
and of disorder; but, before they bow down to this eternal interdict, 
before they retire from the threshold of the constitution to the gloom 
of hopeless and never ending exclusion, I appeal to every candid 
mind, are they not entitled to have it proved by arguments, clear as 
the light of heaven, that this necessity exists ? T now* challenge the 
investigation of those supposed maxims, step by step, and inch by 
inch. Let it be stated in some clear and intelligible form, what is 
this fundamental prop of the constitution; what is this overwhelming 
ruin, which is to tumble upon us by its removal. Let us meet and 
close with this argument. But beware, I warn you, of attempting 
to outlaw the Irish people, by an artificial and interested clamour! 
Let not those who have encouraged the Irish people to expect redress, 
now affect to be bound by this spell of their own raising! This 
would be to palter with their own consciences and the public safety,, 
and can entail no consequences, other than calamity and disgrace. 

The only obstacles, which appear to stand in the way of the Roman 
Catholics, are the oath of supremacy and the declaration against 
transubstantiation. The former of these, in its original enactment 
and application, had a very limited political relation. I speak not 
of the capricious fury of Henry VIII., which made it treason to refuse 
the oath. He considered himself, under God, the supreme head of 
the Church, in all things spiritual and temporal; and bound the 
subject to submit to all his ordinances made, and to be made, under 
the penalty of death. But the application of the oath, as it was mo¬ 
dified by Elizabeth, had chiefly (and with the exception ot offices 
immediately derived from the crown, or concerning the administra¬ 
tion of justice) a religious, and not a political, application. Subject 
to these exceptions, it professed not to control the private opinion, 
nor to ranke it a ground of exclusion. Bat it subjected the public 


THE CATHOLIC CLAIMS. 


119 

profession, or non-conformity, to penalty. And, accordingly, Roman 
Catholics were admissable to parliament and to corporate 'offices for 
more than one hundred years after the introduction of the oath of 
supremacy. Then came the laws of Charles II., which, for the first / 
time, superinduced general exclusion from office, as a political conse¬ 
quence of the religious opinion. 

Here, then, were before us, two principles, the first, that of the 
Reformation, which proscribed the religion; the second, that of 
Charles II., which presumed that certain unconstitutional tenets must 
be held by those who professed that religion, and therefore made 
<jivil incapacity the consequence of the religious belief. Here were 
two principles perfectly distinct, but perfectly consistent. Now what 
have we done? We have, in fact, abrogated the principles of the 
Reformation, for we have repealed the laws against recusancy, and 
legalized the religion. Having done this, it was a necessary conse¬ 
quence to say that we could not infer, from a religious tenet which we 
legalized, a political opinion inconsistent with the safety of the state; 
otherwise we shouldhave been un j ustifiable in legalizing it. We there¬ 
fore substituted instead of the renunciation of the religious doctrine, 
lrom which the political opinion had been formerly inferred, a direct 
denial, upon oath, of the political opinion itself. If then the Roman 
Uatholic may lawfully exercise the religion, and it he will take the 
political oath, how can we consistently make objection, either in a 
religious or political point of view, to his being admitted to the re¬ 
maining privileges of citizenship ? If there is anything inconsistent 
with the true principles of our religion, in permitting the Catholic 
to enjoy civil offices, the authors of the Reformation were deeply cri¬ 
minal in permitting him to enjoy them, while they denounced his 
religion; and we have been doubly traitors, to our religion and to 
our constitution, in sanctioning by law the free exercise ol that re¬ 
ligion ; throwing away the religious test and substituting a political 
one in the place of it. If the political oath, either from its supposed in¬ 
sincerity, or from any other cause, is an insufficient substitute for the 
religious abjuration, how can we be justifiable in allowing it to give 
the Catholic admission to the high constitutional privileges which he 
now enjoys? If it is a sufficient substitute, we prevaricate with our 
own consciences, in refusing him admission, on the strength of it, to 
tae remaining privileges which he requires* In direct violation of the 
policy which substituted the political oath for the religious declara¬ 
tion, we now say that we require this declaration that he does not 
hold the religious doctrine which implies the political. But he is 
ready to swt 4 r that he does hold the political doctrine, and still you 


120 


plunket’s speeches. 


prefer his declaration that he docs not hold the opinion, which famishes 
the presumption, to his oath that he does not hold the opinion, which is 
the tiling presumed. Is not this a perfect proof that the political appre¬ 
hension is a pretext, and that it is bigotry, or something worse, which 
U the motive? Is not this also a full attestation of your perfect re¬ 
liance on the honour and sincerity of the Catholic, as well as of your 
own intolerance? You will accept his word as a proof that he has 
abjured his religious tenets, but you will not receive his oath as long 
as he abides by them. Is it that he is insincere in his oath? Then 
why trust his declaration ? Has the oath a negative power ? It is 
not merely that his oath is not binding, but, that which shall be full 
evidence, if he merely asserts it by implication, shall become utterly 
incredible if he swears to it directly. Why, this is worse than tran- 
substautiation; it is as gross a rebellion against the evidence of de¬ 
monstration as the other is against the testimony o t sense. Again, 
t.he oath of supremacy extends to a renunciation, as well of the spi¬ 
ritual as of the temporal authority of the Pope ; and its object ap¬ 
pears to have been two-fold: first, to exclude the interference of the 
Pope in the temporal concerns of the realm ,* and secondly, to secure 
the Protestant hierarchy against the claims of the sect which had 
been evicted. As to the first, the Roman Catholic tenders an oath, 
utterly denying the Pope’s right to exercise any kind of temporal 
mrisdiction in these kingdoms; as to the second, he tenders an oath, 
abjuring all interference with the Protestant establishment and hier¬ 
archy. What then remains in difference ? The right of the Pope 
wnh respect to their clergy. Now, to this the oath of supremacy never 
had any reference, nor could have had: their clergy were not recog¬ 
nised as having any legal existence when the oath of supremacy was 
enacted, nor as the subject of any other regulation than that of heavy 
punishment if they were discovered. This part of the oath merely 
i'ioks to the preservation of the Protestant hierarchy, and all this is 
effectually provided for by the oath which is proffered. If the Oa- 
tnolic swears that he will not disturb or question the establishment, 
a would seem to concern us very little whether he admires or ap¬ 
proves it, or what may be his abstract opinion of its fitness. We 
nave already the effect of the oath of supremacy, so far as it concerns 
practical and conscientious submission, now, and at all times, and 
it is perfectly childish to say that we will not accept their present 
acquiescence, and their oath that they will continue to acquiesce, 
unless they also swear that they ought, as matter of abstract right, 
to do so. That is, they must not only submit to our title, but swear 
to our argument. I do not mean to say that the mode of appoint- 


THE CATHOLIC CLAIMS. 


121 


ing their clergy and the Pope’s interference with respect to it is not 
a very important topic, and one which we are well warranted in 
looking to and regulating; but what I rely on is, that it is a new 
subject, resting on its own merits, and calling for and requiring a 
conciliatory adjustment, but in no respect involving anything which 
affects the oath of supremacy or the principles of the reformation. 

As to the Corporation Act, every person acquainted with its his¬ 
tory knows that it was introduced, not with an aspect to the Roman 
Catholics, but to sectaries of a very different description, who had 
got into the corporations during the government of Cromwell, aud 
were supposed to be disaffected to the politics of the court. Part 
of the oath, as it was originally framed, was, that it was unlawful, 
under any pretence, to take up arms against the king, or those com¬ 
missioned by him ; and the amendment, which sought to qualify it 
by adding the word “ lawfully,” before commissioned, was thrown 
out. One of the first acts of William and Mary was to repeal this 
scandalous and slavish enactment, which was at direct variauce with 
the first principles of the revolution ; and yet we are told, in patrio¬ 
tic petitions, from loyal Protestant bodies, that this Corporation Act 
was one of the great bulwarks of the revolution. This mutilated 
fragment, one half of which was lopped off by the revolution, is one 
of its pillars, and the Test Act is the other. Its history is known 
to everybody. It was the child of my Lord Shaftesbury, who, on 
the score of religion, possessed a most philosophical composure, but 
had a very pious horror of the court, and levelled this act personalty 
against the Duke of York*; and, as the Corporation Act was the 
first offering of overflowing servility, brought in on the full tide of 
the Restoration, so was the Test Act the result of deep and bitter 
repentance, subsiding at its ebb ; and yet these conflicting, partial, 
and temporary regulations are dwelt on, as if they formed part of 
that great event which we all consider as the foundation of our 
liberties. But I beg to ask has the charter of our liberties bcconu* 
obsolete? If not, why are those mighty instruments hung up like 
rusty armour ? Does not every man know that they are endured 
only because they r are not exercised, and that they are never raen- 

* The act passed the House of Commons without much opposition; “ but in 
the upper house,” says Hume, “ the Duke of York moved that an exception might 
be admitted in his favour. With great earnestness, and even with tears in his eyes, 
he told them that he was now to cast himself on their kindness in the greatest 
concern which he could have in the world ; and he protested that whatever his 
religion might be it should only be between God and his own soul. Notwith¬ 
standing this strong effort in so important a point, he prevailed only by twu 
voices." 



122 


plunket’s speeches.. 


*,ioned, by any constitutional writer, without pleading their inactivity 
as the only apology for their existence ? The taste and sense of the 
public is, in this respect, a reproach to the tardy liberality of the 
legislature. 

Sir, a right honourable gentleman (Mr. Yorke), to whom I wish 
to allude with every possible degree of public and private respect, 
has desired that the Bill of Rights should be referred to ; give me 
leave to ask, do you find in the Bill of Rights the principle of ex¬ 
clusion of Roman Catholics from the legislature or from the state ? 
It is required, no doubt, by the Bill of Rights, that the new oath of 
supremacy, thereby substituted for the former one, should be taken 
by all who were bound to take the former one, but this is not intro¬ 
duced as one of the grievances redressed or rights declared, but ii 
merely incidentally mentioned, in consequence of the substitution oi 
tho one oath for the other; and the declaration against Popery is 
in no respect adverted to; but one fact, most decisive and important 
on this point, is this, that when this act was passed the Roman 
Catholics of Ireland were not, by any law or usage, excluded from 
parliament or from civil or military offices. The articles of Limerick 
(3rd Oct., 1691) stipulated for all such privileges in the exercise of 
religion as were enjoyed in the reign of Charles II., and as were 
consistent with the laws of Ireland. They required the oath o 
allegiance, as created in the first year of William and Mary; and 
the oath to be administered to the Roman Catholics, submitting to 
his majesty’s government, was to be that oath and no other; and 
it was further stipulated that, so soon as their affairs would permit 
them to summon a parliament, their majesties would endeavour to 
procure them such further securities as might preserve them from anj 
disturbance on account of their religion. At this time Roman Ca¬ 
tholics were not excluded from parliament in Ireland, nor were 
there any test or corporation laws in force against them. On the 
faith of these articles, all of which were punctually performed on 
their part, they surrendered the town, and left King William at 
liberty to apply his arms to the great cause in which he was sustain¬ 
ing the liberties of Europe. The stipulation, on the part of govern¬ 
ment, was to protect them against any additional oaths, and to en¬ 
deavour to procure for them additional securities. What was done ? 
The act of the 3rd of William and Mary was passed, giviug them 
no additional securities, but excluding them, for the first time, from 
parliament and from offices civil and military, and from the bar, 
uuless they subscribed the declaration against Popery, and swore 
the oath of supremacy. The stipulation in the articles had been. 


TIIE CATHOLIC CLAIMS. 


125 


not for those in garrison, but that the Roman Catholics of Ireland 
should enjoy their privileges : for the garrison, they had stipulated 
for liberty to serve abroad, and to be conveyed accordingly. These 
victims of mistaken loyalty, when they were about to leave their 
native land, and, with the characteristic generosity and improvidence 
of their country, to commit themselves with the fortunes of a ban¬ 
ished monarch, stipulated, not for themselves, but for the country 
they were about to leave for ever; and the parliament, by a cruel 
mockery, enacted, not for the country, but for them, that they should 
not lose the privileges of—what ? Of being barristers-at-law, clerks 
in chancery, attorneys, practitioners of law and physics, but that 
they might freely use the same! 

Why, sir, do I mention these historical facts ? Not for the pur¬ 
pose of raking up the embers of ancient animosities, but for the 
purpose of showing that, in restoring the privileges of the Catholics, 
we are performing an act of justice, and vindicating the Revolution 
from the stain of this act of perfidy. Men who have forgotten 
every circumstance of that great event, which connects it with the 
cause of civil and religious freedom, affect to call this breach of faith 
and honour one of the sacred principles of our constitution. It is a 
miserable perversion of understanding which can forget everything 
sacred and animating in that glorious struggle, which can fling away 
as dross the precious attestation which it bears to the just rights ot 
the people, which would bury in eternal oblivion the awful lesson 
which it has taught to their rulers ; but consecrates and embalms 
this single act of injustice, which disgraces it. 

Sir, I am satisfied that the illustrious persons who perfected the 
Revolution were not aware of the injustice done to Ireland. In the 
crowded events of that day the stipulations might not have been 
fully known, and there have been at all times a set of slaves ready, 
in this country, to defame and to defraud their native land, to traffic 
on the calamities of their countrymen. I will go further, and sup¬ 
pose that the severe necessity of the times may have made it impos¬ 
sible to avoid an act of injustice; but I will not therefore confound 
the deviation with the rule; I cannot trample on the principle and 
worship the exception. It might as well be said that to restore the 
Danish fleet would be a violation of the laws of nature and of nations, 
because a deplorable necessity had compelled us to violate these laws 
by seizing it. I have, perhaps, dwelt too long on this part of the 
subject, but I felt anxious to meet the cry of this great charter of 
our freedom being at variance with the rights of the people. The 
great men of that day had deeply studied the laws and constitution 


12 i 


plunket’s speeches. 


of their country; with ardent feelings and sublime conceptions they 
made no unnecessary breach on any ancient usage ; no wanton en¬ 
croachment of any rights of people or of king; not like our modern 
improvers, who hold for nothing the wisdom which has gone before 
them, and set up their own crude conceptions, with an utter contempt 
for all the sacred lore of their ancestors. They committed no rude 
outrage on those who had gone before them ; they entailed no odious 
bondage on those who were to succeed them : with the modesty aud 
simplicity which characterize great minds, they declared the essential 
rights of the constitution. They saw that the system of the reforma¬ 
tion would be incomplete, unless the king, who was the temporal 
head of the church, should be in communion with that church ; they 
therefore enacted that he should hold his crown only while he adhered 
to his religion. They declared the throne unalterably Protestant— 
they declared the religion of the state unalterably Protestant; aud, 
having thus laid the tirm foundation of civil and religious freedom, 
they left all other considerations open to the progress of time and to 
the wisdom of posterity. 

That time has come and that posterity is now called upon to de¬ 
cide. We are fighting the same battle, in which the illustrious deli¬ 
verer of these countries was engaged—we are defending the liberties 
of Europe and of the world, against the same unchangeable and in¬ 
satiable ambition which then assailed them—we are engaged with an 
enemy far more formidable than Louis XIV., whether we consider the 
vastness of his plans, the consummateness of his skill, his exhaustless 
resources, or his remorseless application of them. But if our dangers 
are aggravated, our means of safety are increased. William III. wrs 
obliged to watch, with a jealous eye, the movements of one half o«. 
his subjects, whilst he employed the energies of the other. We have 
it iu our power to unite them all, by one great act of national justice. 
If we do not wantonly and obstinately fling away the means which 
God’s providence has placed within our grasp, we may bring the 
energies of all our people, with one hand and heart, to strike against 
the common enemy. 

Sir, there is a kind of circular reasoning which seems, at some 
public meetings, to pass for full proof. They say that this measure 
invades the constitution, because it endangers the church; and they 
say it endangers the church, because it invades the constitution. 
Sir, it is not sought; to affect the church establishment—to take 
away its possessions, to degrade its rank, or to touch its emoluments. 
Its doctrines aud its discipline are not interfered with. This is no 
attempt to include the Catholic w ithin 'the pale of the Protestaat 


TIIE CATHOLIC; CLAIMS. 


125 


church, nor to give him any share in its establishment. What is 
meant by the cry of danger to the church ? Is it that the measure 
will be immediately injurious to the church, or that it will endanger 
the church, by enabling the Catholics hereafter to overturn it ? In 
die first point of view, the only immediate effect it has is to open the 
honours of the state to all other descriptions of subjects, as well as 
to those who profess the established religion. Is it meant to bo 
argued that the Protestant religion will be deserted, unless a temporal 
bonus is held out to those who adhere to it ? Do they mean to re¬ 
cruit for the establishment by a bounty from the state ? The sup¬ 
position is too abhorrent from the spirit of Christianity, and too 
degrading to the dignity of the church. Then as to danger—the 
overthrow of the Protestant establishment—how is this to be effected? 
In parliamout or out of parliament? By force or by legislation? If 
by force, how does the removal of civil disabilities enable them ? Does 
it not make it much more unlikely that they should make the at¬ 
tempt ? And if they should make it, will not the removal of the 
1 eal grievance deprive them of the co-operation of the moderate and 
the honest ? If the latter, is it really apprehended that the number 
of members let in would be strong enough to overrule the Protest¬ 
ants, and force a law to pull down the establishment ? Would you 
have the returns much more favourable to the Catholics than they 
are at present ? If the entire one hundred members were to be Ca¬ 
tholics, could such a measure, in the range of human possibility, be 
successful, or could it seriously enter into the contemplation of any 
man in his senses ? The apprehension, when it undergoes the test 
of close examination, is perfectly chimerical. These are not the fruits 
of the wholesome caution of statesmen, but the reveries of disordered 
brains. But if you reject this measure now, and postpone it to times 
of difficulty and danger, will the interests of the Protestant church 
be better guarded ? Grant it now- and you grant it as a matter of 
grace, to which you may annex every fair and reasonable condition ; 
out if you find it necessary to resort to it in some hour of dismay and 
adversity, when the storm is blowing and the public institutions an 
rocking and toppling, will the establishment be perfectly secure r 
Again, if you grant it now, you give it to a class as much inferior 
in property as they are superior in numbers. Now, it is a truth, as 
certain as any in political economy, that at no very distant period 
/he wealth of the country must become diffused pretty nearly in pro¬ 
portion toitsrelative population. Will the Protestants of Ireland thank 
you for deferring the adjustment of this question until it shall be de¬ 
manded by people having as great an ascendancy in wealth as in 

i 





126 


PLUNKETTS SPEECHES. 


population ? Sir, these are serious practical considerations, and the 
clergy of this country would do well to weigh them and to reflect upon 
them. These are questions much more of policy than of religion, and 
it is not without deep regret that I see any portion of that respect¬ 
able body interpose themselves between the wisdom of the legislature 
and the temporal interests of the subject, with such a tone and such 
a manner as some of them have assumed on this occasion. If the 
interests of religion or the rights of their order are at stake, they are 
entitled to come forward as a body—even if the matter is merely . 
political, they are entitled to come forward as individuals; but that 
any of them should adopt the present tone of unqualified remonstrance, 
because the Commons of England propose to consider the political 
claims of their fellow Christians and fellow subjects, with a view to 
a final and amicable adjustment, does not seem calculated to advance 
the real interests of religion. 

Sir, religion is degraded when it is brandished as a political wea¬ 
pon—and there is no medium in the use of it; either it is justified 
by holy zeal and fervent piety, or the appeal to it becomes liable to 
the most suspicious imputation. Sir, I consider the safety of the 
state as essentially interwoven with the integrity of the establishment. 
The established religion is the child of freedom. The reformation 
grew out of the free spirit of bold investigation: in its turn it repaid 
the obligation, with more than filial gratitude, and contributed, with 
all its force, to raise the fabric of our liberties. Our civil and reli¬ 
gious liberties would each of them lose much of their security if they 
were not so deeply indented each with the other. The church need 
not be apprehensive. It is a plant of the growth of three hundred 
years ; it has struck its roots into the centre of the state, and nothing 
short of a political earthquake can overturn it: while the state is 
safe it must be so; but let it not be forgotten that, if the state is en¬ 
dangered it cannot be secure. The church is protected by the purity 
of its doctrines and its discipline; the learning and the piety of its 
ministers; their exemplary discharge of every moral and Christian 
duty ; the dignity of its hierarchy, the extent and lustre of its pos¬ 
sessions, and the reverence of the public for its ancient and unques¬ 
tioned rights: to these the Catholic adds the mite of his oath, thafc 
he does not harbour the chimerical hope, or the unconstitutional wish 
to shake or to disturb it; and, therefore, all that is requisite for 
the security of the church is that it should remain in repose, on its 
own deep and immoveable foundations ; and this is the policy which 
the great body of the church of Ireland, and I believe I may adHj 
of the church of England, have adopted. If anything could endan- 


THE CATHOLIC CLAIMS. 


127 


ger its safety, it would be the conduct of intemperate and officious 
men, wffio would erect the church into a political arbiter, to prescribe 
rules of imperial policy to the throne and to the legislature. 

Sir, a reason assigned by the honourable member who last spokt 
for his change of opinion is, that the sense of the people of England 
is against the measure. Supposing, for a moment, that the fact were 
so, to a much greater extent than it really is, would it afford a fair 
argument for precluding an inquiry and adjustment? I consider it, 
under any circumstances, an invidious and dangerous topic, to cite 
the opinion of the people of one part of the empire against the claims 
of the people of another part of it; but to cite it as an argument 
against the full discussion of their claims seems utterly unwarrant¬ 
able. But, when it is recollected that the Union was urged upon 
the Catholics of Ireland, under the strong expectation that facilities 
would be consequently afforded to the accomplishment of their wishes, 
is it not something very like dishonesty to press into the service, 
against their claims, the opinion of the people of England, and its 
authority with an English parliament ? If this question were now 
under discussion in an Irish parliament, granted to be in itself just 
and expedient, called for by all the Catholics and by a great major¬ 
ity of the Protestants of Ireland, would it be endured as an argu¬ 
ment that the cry of the people of England was against it ? You 
have taken away that parliament, under the assurauce that, in a 
British parliament that might be safely done, which, in an Irish 
parliament might be difficult or dangerous, and now you say, “ true,, 
the measure is right, but the difficulty grows from its being dis¬ 
cussed in an English parliament, because such a parliament must de¬ 
fer to the prejudices of the English, at the expence of the rights of 
the Irish people.” It may be said that the people of England are no 
parties to such a compact ; but I would appeal to the noble lord,'" 
who, if he did not guarantee it as a compact, was at least a veiy 
principal mover in holding it out as an inducement, whether he can 
countenance such a topic; or can he link hin^elf with those who 
have, by every indirect method, endeavoured to excite the people of 
England, in order to fabricate the argument ? 

Sir, the opinion of the people is undoubtedly entitled to a respect- 

* Castlereagh. One of Pitt’s principal arguments for the Union was, that in 
a British parliament, where the weight of the assembly and the constituencies 
represented would be Protestant, there would be less difficulty in reconciling th* 
claims of the Catholics with the principles of the British constitutional system 
than in Ireland, where the nation was Catholic, and only the governing class 
Protestant. 


128 


plunket’s speeches. 


fill attention; it is to be listened to—to be canvassed, and, if sound 
And reasonable, to be deferred to; but the clamour of the people of 
jither country is not to silence the deliberations of parliament; still 
/ess the opinion of a partial and very limited portion of that people ; 
still less an opinion founded on imperfect views; still less an opinion 
founded upon gross prejudices, excited and kindled by artful and in¬ 
terested misrepresentation, and for the very purpose of preventing 
lair discussion. The opinion of the people of both countries is to 
be looked to, and the reasonable foundations of the opinions of both; 
and in so doing, it is always to be recollected that the sentiments of 
the Catholics are not to be the less regarded on account of their being 
principally condemned in one part of the united kingdom; but if, 
either from prudence or affection, they would be respected if inter¬ 
spersed through the counties of Great Britain, they are not the less 
entitled to attention because they constitute four-fifths of the most 
vulnerable, and not least productive portion of the empire. The ques¬ 
tion, it is true, is an imperial one: why? Because Ireland is iden¬ 
tified with your interest and happiness and glory; her interests are 
yours, and therefore Irish policy is imperial policy; but it seems 
rather inconsistent to take cognizance of the question, on the suppo¬ 
sition that the interests of the two countries are absolutely the same; 
and to decide it upon the principle that the rights of the one are 
essentially and unalterably opposed to the wishes and the safety of the 
other. But, sir, I utterly deny the fact, that such is the sentiment 
of the people of England. A pretty bold experiment has been made, 
and it has failed. The intelligent class of the English public, those 
who, from property and from education, and from place in society, 
are entitled to sway the opinion of the legislature on this, or on any 
political subject, are, I firmly believe, friendly to a full discussion of 
the Catholic claims, and with a strong leaning in favour of liberality 
and concession, if they can be made to appear consistent with public 
safety. This is a tribunal to which an appeal may be fairly made, 
and to which adequate and ample satisfaction should be given ; and 
there is no concession or sacrifice, not inconsistent with the essential 
principles of their religion, which the Catholics are not bound to make 
for the purpose. But, sir, beyond this public, and to the very dregs of 
the community I fear there are some desperate enough to look. I 
have heard something like a muttered threat of such an appeal; but 
I do not believe, though there is much valour at present on this sub¬ 
ject, that we need fear a repetition of the outrages of St. George’s 
Fields; I do not fear that our ears will be again assailed by the hell 
shout of “ No Popery.” I Have heard something more than an in- 


THE CATHOLIC CLAIMS. 


129 


Binuation, within these walls, that this is a question in which the 
lower classes of the people are very deeply interested, and that their 
voice is, on this occasion, to be particularly attended to. 

Sir, the doctrine is rather novel in the quarter from which it pro* 
ceeds, nor am I disposed to give it an unqualified denial. I should 
be sorry to contend, that the voice of any portion of our fellow sub¬ 
jects, however humble, should be disregarded. If they complain of 
giievances by which they are oppressed, of justice withheld, or of 
anything trenching upon their freedom or their comforts, they are to 
be heard with patient and with deep attention; and the more humble the 
situation of the complainants, the more bounden the duty of the re¬ 
presentative to listen to them. But, on a subject like the presen:, 
where the legislature is called on to withhold the privileges of the 
constitution from a great proportion of the people, upon supposed 
principles of state government; when claims of common right are 
withheld, in deference to sacred and mysterious maxims of imperial 
policy: on such a subject, I say, it is something more than absurdity 
tu affect a deference for the shouts of the lower orders of the people. 
Sir, the apprehension of such an appeal being resorted to need not 
affect our deliberations ; those who intimate such an intention know 
full well that, though the threat may be endured, the times would 
i ot bear the execution of it; they know full well that, if parliament 
determines to pursue its steady course of calm investigation and 
liberal adjustment, there is no faction in the state which can effec¬ 
tually interpose between the sovereign authority of the legislature and 
the just demands of the people. 

The conduct of the Roman Catholics of Ireland has been resorted 
to as an argument for abandoning the pledge of the last session. 
Sir, I am not the advocate of their intemperance; I am free to say 
that there have been some proceedings, on the part of the public 
bodies, who affect to act for them, altogether unjustifiable. Their 
attempts to dictate to the entire body how they are to act on each 
particular political occurrence, their presuming to hold an inquisition 
on the conduct of individuals in the exercise of the elective fran¬ 
chise, and putting them under the ban of their displeasure, because 
they vote for their private friends and abide by their plighted en¬ 
gagements ; all this is a degree of iuquisitorial authority unexampled 
and insufferable; aud tbi , by persons professing themselves the 
advocates of unbounded freedom and unlimited toleration, at the 
moment when they are extending u.eir uupailying tyranny into the 
domestic arrangement oi every Catholic family ir. the country. Sir, 
I am equally disgusted with the tone of unqualified demand and 


130 


plunket’s speeches. 


haughty rejection of all condition or accommodation, so confident!* 
announced by them; nor can I palliate the intemperance ot many i*. 
their public speeches, nor the exaggeration and violence ot some ot 
their printed publications. To this tone I never wish to see the 
legislature yield; but, as this indecent clamour is not to compel them 
to yield what is unreasonable, I trust it will not influence them to 
withhold what is just. 

Sir, it appears to me most unfair to visit on the Roman Catholic 
‘he opinions and the conduct of such public assemblies as profess 
*ct for them ; if they labour under a real and a continuing grievance, 
and one which justifies, on their part, a continued claim, they must 
act through the medium of popular assemblies, and must, of course, 
be exposed to all the inconveniences which attend discussion in as¬ 
semblies. In all such places, we.know that unbounded applause 
aitends the man who occupies the extreme positions of opinion, and 
that the extravagance of his expression of such opinion will not be 
calculated to diminish it. That there may be many individuals 
anxious to promote their own consequence at the expense of the party 
whose interest they profess to advocate, is an evil inseparable from 
such a state of things; and, amongst those who sincerely wish to pro¬ 
mote the interests of the cause, much may fairly be attributed to the 
heat naturally generated by long continued opposition; much to 
the effects of disappointed hope; much to the resentment excited 
and justified by insolent and virulent opposition. But, sir, I should 
unworthily shrink from my duty, if I were not to avow my opinion, 
that the unfortunate state of the public mind in Ireland is, above all 
things, imputable to the conduct of the government. Without recur¬ 
ring unnecessarily to subjects which have been already discussed in 
this house, I may be allowed to say that the rash interference with 
the right of petitioning has given deep and just offence to the entire 
Catholic body. They have been compelled to rally round their con¬ 
stitutional privileges, and make common cause. Those excesses, 
which two years since would have been eagerly repressed by the 
Catholics themselves, might now, I fear, be regarded with some de¬ 
gree of favourable allowance on their part. 

1 must say that the country has not been fairly dealt with on this 
subject. It is the bounden duty of the government to make up 
their mind, and to act a consistent part. If this measure is utterly 
inadmissible, expectation should be put down by the certainty of re¬ 
jection ; resentment should be allayed by the clear exposition of uo 
necessity which bars; the fever of the public mind should be sub¬ 
dued, aud ail the means of conciliation consistent with such a system 


THE CATHOLIC CLAIMS. 


131 


should be resorted to. If, on the other hand, this claim may and 
ought to be acted on, it should be frankly received and honestly for¬ 
warded ; every facility for its accomplishment should be afforded, by 
tempering and directing the proceedings of those who s£ek it; by 
suggesting the -conditions and terms on which it should be granted; 
and by arranging the details, as well as planning the outlines, of such 
a system. But how can any honest mind be reconciled to the ambi¬ 
guity in which the cabinet has concealed itself from public view on 
this great national question, or with what justice can they complain 
of the madness which grows out of this fever of their own creating. 

This is not one of those questions which may be left to time and 
chance. The exclusion of these millions from the rights of citizen¬ 
ship is either a flagrant injustice or its necessity springs out of the 
sacred fountains of the constitution. This is no subject of com¬ 
promise. Either the claim is forbidden by some imperious principle 
too sacred to be tampered with, or it is enjoined by a law of reason 
and justice, which it is oppression to resist. In ordinary cases it 
sounds well to say that a question is left to the unbiassed sense of 
parliament and people ; but that a measure of vital importance, and 
which has been again and again discussed by all his majesty’s 
ministers, should be left to work its own course, and suffered to drift 
aloug the tide of parliamentary or popular opinion, seems difficult to 
understand. That government should be mere spectators of such a 
process is novel. But, when it is known that they have all consi¬ 
dered it deeply, and formed their opinions decidedly in direct oppo¬ 
sition to each other, that, after this, they should consult in the same 
cabinet, and sit on the same bench, professing a decided opinion in 
point of theory and a strict neutrality in point of practice ; that, on 
this most angry of all questions they should suffer the population of 
the country to be committed in mutual hostility, aud convulsed with 
mutual rancour, aggravated by the uncertainty of the event; pro¬ 
ducing, on the one hand, all the fury of disappointed hope, on the 
other side, malignity and hatred, from the apprehension that tha 
measure may be carried, and insolence from every circumstance, 
public or private, which tends to disappoint or to postpone it; one 
half the king’s ministers encouraging them to seek, without enabling 
them to obtain—the other halt subdivided; some holding out an 
ambiguous hope, others announcing a never-ending despair. I ask, 
is this a state in which the government of the country has a right to 
leave it? Some master-piece of imperial policy must be unfolded, 
some deep and sacred^ principle of empire, something far removed 
from the suspicion of unworthy compromise of principle for power, to 


132 


plunket’s speeches. 


reconcile the feelings of the intelligent public, or to uphold a rational 
confidence in the honesty or seriousness of the government. The 
consequences of snch conduct are disastrous, not merely in the tumult 
and discord which, in this particular instance, they are calculated to 
excite, but in their effect upon the character of the government and 
the times. 

Sir, I repeat it, the Irish Catholics have not been fairly dealt 
with ; the government has not, in any instance, come into amicable 
contact with them ; it has not consulted, nor soothed, nor directed 
them; it has addressed them only in the stern voice of the law, in 
state prosecution, and it is most unjust to charge against them the 
anger which has been kindled by such treatment. But, sir, I ask 
what have the Catholics done ? Look to their actions for the last 
century, and do not judge them by a few intemperate expressions or 
absurd publications—these are not the views of statesmen—you are 
considering the policy of centuries and the fate of a people, and will 
you condescend to argue, on such a subject, the merits of a pamphlet, 
or to scan the indiscretions of an angry speaker at a public meeting ? 
Of this I am sure, that if the violence with which the demand has 
been urged by some of its advocates is to create a prejudice against 
it, the virulence with which it has been rejected by some of its 
opponents ought to be allowed to have some operation in its favour; 
perhaps under these opposite impulses of passion a chance may be 
afforded of reason having fair play, and a hearing may be procured 
for the merits of the case. This, too, should not be lost sight of: 
that the Catholics are seeking their rights; that they are opposed 
by an adverse government, many of whom declare that no conces¬ 
sion on their part could be effectual, but that their doom is inter¬ 
minable exclusion. May I ask, whether it is fair to require, or 
reasonable to expect, that the Catholics should, under such circum¬ 
stances, exercise a fastidious delicacy in the selection of their 
friends ; and say to those who profess themselves their advocates, 
“ We refuse your aid, your language is not sufficiently measured ; 
you urge our demands in too warm and too unqualified a tone, and 
we prefer the chances which may arise from throwing ourselves on 
the mercy of our enemies.” 

Sir, I will not affect to disguise the fact, that there are persons in 
Ireland who look to revolution and separation.. I certainly do not 
mean to say, nor do I believe, that those whose warmth of expres¬ 
sion has been so much and so justly complained of are, in the most 
remote degree, liable to the suspicion of being joined with such a 
party. The separatists are, in my judgment, neither numerous nor 


THE CATHOLIC CLAIMS. 


133 


in themselves, formidable; and of this I am sure, that they tremble 
at the prospect of the adjustment of the Catholic claims, as a mea¬ 
sure deadly to their views. Is it a wise policy, is it a course which 
any government can justify to the country, to recruit for these public 
enemies, by endeavouring to embody the legitimate clapas of the 
Catholics with their wild and pernicious projects ? Is it not mad¬ 
ness to oppose the same blind and indiscriminate resistance to the 
honest objects of the great uutainted landed and commercial interests 
of the Catholic people, and to affect to confound them in a common 
cause with those miserable enemies of public freedom and safety ? 

Sir, if I am asked what course, in my opinion, should be pursued 
in this momentous business, 1 cannot answer without doubt and dis¬ 
trust in my own judgment, where I may differ from many whose 
opinion I highly respect; but it is fair to say that the opinion which 
I have always entertained and always expressed, publicly and pri¬ 
vately, on this subject, is, that this measure cannot be finally and 
satisfactorily adjusted, unless some arrangement shall be made with 
respect to the Roman Catholic clergy, and some security afforded to 
the state against foreign interference. On the best consideration I 
have been able to give the subject, and on the fullest communication 
I have been able to obtain on it, I am satisfied that such security 
may be afforded without interfering in any degree with the essentials 
of their religion ; and if so, the mere circumstance of its being re¬ 
quired is a sufficient reason for conceding it. This is not a struggle 
for the triumph of one party of the state over another; it is a great 
national sacrifice of mutual prejudices for the common good; and 
any opportunity of gratifying the Protestant mind should be eagerly 
seized by the Catholic, even if the condition required were uncalled 
for by any real or well-founded apprehension. But I must go a step 
further, and avow that the state has, in my opinion, a right to re¬ 
quire some fair security against foreign influence in its domestic con¬ 
cerns. What this security may be, provided it shall be effectual, 
ought, as I conceive, to be left to the option of the Catholic body. 
I am little solicitous about the form, so that the substance is attained. 
As a veto has been objected to, let it not be required ; but let the 
security be afforded, either by domestic nomination of the clergy or 
in any shape or form which shall exclude the practical effect of 
foreign interference. Let them be liberally provided for by the 
state, let them be natives of the country and educated in the country, 
and let the full and plenary exercise of spiritual authority by the 
Pope, which forms an essential part of their religious discipline, re¬ 
main in all its force ; leave to their choice the mode of reconciling 


134 


pltjnket’s speeches. 


these principles, and stand not upon the manner, if the thing be 
done. 

An honourable gentleman asks, will this satisfy the Catholics ? I 
will not be so indiscreet as to answer for what will satisfy them—I 
believe it will. But it is enough for me to know that this ought to 
satisfy them; and of this we may be convinced, that we do not en¬ 
able them to obtain what they ought not, by granting them what they 
ought, to have. But what is the use, it is asked, of a measure pro¬ 
posed as an instrument of peace, if it is likely, on the contrary, to 
produce nothing but dissatisfaction ? I answer, first, I believe it 
will produce full satisfaction, if frankly proposed and honestly acted 
on. But if you doubt of this, do not make your proceeding an 
absolute and a final one ; reserve the operation of the act which grants 
relief (if you think it necessary), until the accompanying measure of 
security shall be ripened, so as to ensure satisfaction in their enact¬ 
ment ; declare your principles of security, and your conditions, and 
let the operation of your law, or the effect of your resolution, await 
the desire of the Catholic body, signified or fairly understood, with 
respect to them. Pursue this course, put this measure into the 
hands of those in whom the Catholics can place confidence, or give 
them such a parliamentary pledge, that they may see that the ac¬ 
complishment of their wishes is dependant on their own good sense 
and moderation; and, I have no doubt, they will not be wanting to 
contribute their part to this great national work of strength and 
union. In all events you will have discharged your duty. You will 
have given satisfaction to the honest and to the reasonable. You 
will have separated the sound from the unsound, and you will leave 
the bigot or the incendiary, stripped of all his terrors, by depriving 
him of all his grievances. Sir, I have done. I may be in error; 
but I have not sacrificed to interest or to prejudice, and 1 have 
spoken my sentiments in the sincerity of my heart. 


Plunket sat down amid cheers from all sides of the house. This grand effc-* 
was regarded as his maiden speech in the British Commons, and had a success 
beyond parallel. Almost every speaker who followed him upon either side i 1 
the question referred to it in terms of unmeasured admiration. “ A speech,'* 
said Peel, “ which has called forth many compliments; but none which *he 
eloquence and abilities which he has di.-played do not fully justify.” ‘ A 
speech,” said Whitbread, “ the excellence of which with painful regret recals to 
my recollection the golden days when this house contained a Pitt, a Fox, a 
.Sheridan, and a Windham.” “ A speech,” said Sir William Scott, “ not more to j 
be admired as an exhibition of talents than for the honourable and manly car- 
dour by which it was still further dignified and adorned.” “ A speech,” said 
Cunning, 44 to whose merits it is superfluous to add my feeble testimony: a 


V 


THE SPEAKER’S ADDPESS. 


13;> 


speech displaying not only the talents of an accomplished orator, but the larg<( 
views and comprehensive mind of a statesman; but still more commendable for a 
still greater excellence—that of manfully disclaiming all meretricious popularity, 
and courageously rebuking thy excesses of those whose cause he came forward 
to plead.” But the most remarkable tribute of all was that of Castlereagh, 
when we remember the ferocious collisions between him and Plunket in the lrisii 
house. In answering Plunket’s attack upon the government, he said he hope j 
whatever he said would be “ imputed to the sincere respect which he thought dui 
to everything which fell from so distinguished a character as the right honour¬ 
able and learned gentleman, whose talents excited the highest admiration, and 
whose convincing speech could never be forgotten.” 

The house went into committee on the 9th of March, and produced, after 
various sittings, extending to the 20th of May, a Roman Catholic Relief Bill, 
which afterwards formed the basis of the Emancipation Act—hampered, how¬ 
ever, with securities on the subject of episcopal nomination, which were ex¬ 
ceedingly obnoxious to the Catholics of Ireland. Plunket did not speak in com¬ 
mittee, and was obliged to return to Ireland before the final debate. This was 
on the 24th of May, when, on considering the bill in detail, the Speaker moved, 
in a speech of virulent bigotry, an amendment to the effect of excluding Catho¬ 
lics from parliament. After a long debate, in which Canning spoke with signal 
earnestness and eloquence, the committee divided, and the amendment was 
carried by a majority of four. Instantly on the division being declared, Mr. 
Ponsonby rose and said that as the bill, without this clause, was worthless to 
the Catholics, it would now be abandoned. 


THE SPEAKER’S ADDRESS TO THE REGENT. 

22nd April , 1814. 

At the close of the session of 1813, the Speaker, addressing the Prince Regent 
at the bar of the House of Lords, alluded to the defeat which he had been the 
instrument of administering to the Catholic cause in the following terms r— 

“ Other momentous changes have been submitted to our consideration. Ad¬ 
hering, however, to those laws by which the throne, the parliament, and the 
government of this country are made fundamentally Protestant, we have not 
consented to allow that those who acknowledge a foreign jurisdiction should be 
authorised to administer the powers and jurisdictions of tins realm—willing as 
we are, nevertheless, and willing as I trust we shall ever be, to allow the 
largest scope for toleration.” 

This language, based upon a majority of merely four votes, naturally ex¬ 
cited great indignation, and early in the session Lord Morpeth moved that the 
language of the Speaker, commenting in such a way upon a question under the 
consideration of parliament, should not be draw r n into a precedent, and that a 
minute to that effect should be entered upon the journals of the house. This 
being virtually a vote of censure upon the Speaker, a warm debate ensued, 
early in which Plunket spoke:— 

Sir, after the long and able arguments which we have heard on tiny 
subject, and more particularly after the ample justice which has been 




136 


PLUiJKET’s speeches. 


done to it in the eloquent and admirable speech of the honourable gen¬ 
tleman below me (Mr. Grant), it may appear unnecessary or presump¬ 
tuous furtherto occupy the attention of the house. Feeling, however, 
as I do cn this important occasion, I own I cannot reconcile myself 
to remaining wholly silent on it. I completely concur with you, sir, 
that the present question is one wholly unconnected with the question 
of Catholic emancipation. We are not now to consider what it may 
or may not be right to do with respect to this latter. We are not to 
ascertain the present opinion of the house upon it. The question is, 
whether, the house having come to a resolution with respect to the 
Catholics, you, sir, were authorized to convey to the throne an in¬ 
timation of that proceeding, accompanied by a censure on those who 
had eudeavoured to follow it up by a legislative measure. 

Sir, I declare most solemnly, that if the sentiments which you ex¬ 
pressed to the throne had been as friendly to the Catholic cause as 
tiiey were certainly hostile to it, I should equally have concurred in 
the present motion. It is true, as it has been justly said, this is not 
a party or a personal question. Nothing, sir, but the most imperious 
sense of duty could justify the censure of your conduct. But if any 
man feels that a vital and important part of the constitution has 
been assailed, and that you have done that which, if it were estab¬ 
lished as a precedent, would overturn and destroy the constitution 
itself; and if that man should refuse to accede to the motion of the 
noble lord, either out of deference to you, sir, or from any unworthy 
exultation at the attack made by you on so large a portion of the com¬ 
munity, no words are sufficiently strong to describe the meanness of such 
a dereliction of duty on the one hand, or of such an unworthy betray¬ 
ing of the trusts reposed in a representative of the people on the other. 

Sir, I am free to say, that the speech made by you to the throne, 
at the close of the last session, was one of the most formidable 
attacks on the constitution of parliament that has occurred since thy 
revolution. It was an attack materially aggravated by its having 
proceeded from a person the natural guardian of that constitution. 
And, sir, it is peculiarly unfortunate, that we cannot assert our own 
rights without impairing your dignity ; however anxious we may be 
to abstain from everything like asperity, and to treat you, sir, with 
all that respect to which you are so amply entitled. Subject to this 
last consideration, I shall make my observations upon the question 
with as much freedom and latitude, and discharge my duty as unre¬ 
strainedly, as you, sir, have done, in what I have no doubt you con¬ 
scientiously conceived to have been yours. 

Sir, there is no subject upon which this house has always evinced 


toe speaker’s address. 


137 


so much anxious jealousy as that its proceedings should be exempt 
from all control and interference on the part of the crown. Soma 
communication between the throne and parliament must undoubtedly 
exist; but the mode of this communication is perfectly defined and as¬ 
certained. If the throne wishes to communicate with parliament, that 
communication is made either by a formal speech from the throne or 
by a message. But the object of such communication always is to 
invite parliament to deliberate on some proposed measure, and never 
to control or interfere with any deliberations already entered into. 
So on the other hand, if either house wish to communicate with 
the throne, that communication is made either by addre c s or by reso¬ 
lution ; and the object of such communication is, not to ask the advice 
ot the throne on any subject upon which parliament may be delibera¬ 
ting, but to give to the throne any advice that parliament may think 
it expedient to offer; for this plain reason, that we are the constitu¬ 
tional advisers of the throne, but that the throne is not the' constitu¬ 
tional adviser of parliament. Advice from the throne would have 
too much the air of command, to be consistent with the freedom of 
discussion in this house. Beyond the limits which I have mentioned, 
there is no constitutional channel of communication between the throne 
aud parliament, save when we present our bills for the royal assent 
or dissent. This is so clear, that it is generally acknowledged that 
if, sir, you had no bill to present, you would have no right to addre-s 
the throne at all. Accordingly when you uttered the address which is 
the subject of our present deliberation, you held in your hand the 
vote of credit bill, and you concluded that address with praying the 
royal assent to the bill. Had you not held such a bill, your speech 
would have been an absolute intrusion, wholly unwarranted by par¬ 
liamentary usage, or by the constitution. 

I do not mean to say, sir, that you were under the necessity of 
strictly confining yourself in your address to the subject of the bill 
which you presented. It was perfectly allowable, that your speech 
should be graced and ornamented by allusions to other matters. If, 
sir, you had described generally the measures adopted by parliament, 
or had descanted on topics of general policy, however we might have 
considered your opinion as a mistaken one, the promulgation of it 
could never have been deemed a violation of our privileges. Unless 
you had alluded to matters pending in parliament, the observations 
which you had thought proper to make might have been thought 
light or unnecessary, but could not have been characterised as uncon 
stitutkmal. This remark applies to what has been said of my right 
honourable friend, the late Speaker of the parliament in Ireland 


138 


PLUNKET’s SrEECEES. 


(Mr. Foster). My right honourable friend did certainly make the 
question of Catholic emancipation and Protestant ascendancy the 
subject of a speech to the throne: and in doing so he had no reason 
to congratulate himself on his prudence ; for in the very next session, 
his principles and his predictions were overturned all together. But 
this was imprudence only, and not a violation of parliamentary pri¬ 
vilege. It has not been so considered. A solitary petition was 
presented to the house on the subject; but no member of the Irish 
parliament had made it a question of parliamentary discussion. 

It is on these grounds, sir, that I perfectly concur in the propriety 
of the general observations contained in your speech at the close of 
the last session. In that style of dignified congratulation which so 
well becomes you, you spoke of the success of our brave fleets and 
armies, and conferred the just meed of your eloquent praise on their 
gallant leaders. I am sure, sir, that every one of us must be proud 
and gratified when he hears you deliver yourself on such subjects 
with so much elevation and propriety of manner. But when, be¬ 
cause you are the organ of communication between this house and 
the throne, you proceed to notice subjects controverted in this house, 
you will find it difficult to discover precedents in justification of your 
conduct; and still further, when you mention propositions made 
here, and not acceded to, but rejected, you place yourself in a situa¬ 
tion still less capable of defence. On this part of the subject, the 
remarks made by the honourable gentleman below me (Mr. Grant) 
are unanswerable. As that honourable gentleman justly observed, 
if a measure passes in parliament no single person is responsible for 
that which is an act of the whole house. But it is impossible fur 
you, sir, to state that a proposed measure has been rejected without 
implying a censure on the individual or individuals by whom that 
proposition was made. Accordingly, our rule of proceeding with 
respect to bills is founded on this consideration. When a bill is sent 
to the other house, or is presented to the throne for the royal assent 
or dissent, it does not bear on the face of it whether or not it passed 
unanimously, or what was the amount of the majority by which it 
was carried. And why ? Because this house will never suffer the 
state of its divisions and parties to be subject to the direction or to 
be under the influence or control of any other tribunal. 

The authority of Mr. Ilatsell has been dwelt upon with much em¬ 
phasis. As members of the legislature, I deny that, in our decision 
on great constitutional questions we are to take Mr. HatseU’s publi¬ 
cation as a text-book. We are not to be told that we must learn 
the principles of the British constitution from Mr. Hatsell’s work* 



THE SPEAKER’S ADDRESS. 


139 


But, after all, what is there in that work which bears on the present 
question ? Mr. Hatsell states, and states truly, that when the 
Speaker presents a money bill at the foot of the throne, he may ad¬ 
vert, not to the subject of that bill alone, but to other business which 
parliament may have transacted. But does he say that the Speaker 
may advert to pending or rejected measures ? Nay, up to this very 
moment, after all the inquiries made by yourself, sir, so capable of 
deep research, and after ail the inquiries made by all your numerous 
friends, has a single precedent been found of a Speaker’s having re¬ 
ferred in his speech to the throne to any measure which had been 
rejected by the house ? 

And let it be recollected, that the measure to which you thought 
proper to refer was still pending. For, what was the state of the 
proceedings on the Catholic question ? A resolution had been agreed 
to, to take into consideration, in a committee of the whole house, the 
laws affecting the Roman Catholics, with a view to their amicable 
adjustment. The committee met, and resolutions were passed, de¬ 
claring it expedient to admit the Catholics to seats in parliament, 
and to other powers and jurisdictions, under certain provisions for 
the security of the Protestant establishment. A bill was introduced 
to that effect, and the second reading agreed to by a considerable 
majority of the house. Everything, therefore, sir, of which you 
could properly take cognizance was favoftrable to the Catholic cause. 
But in the speech which you made to the throne you passed over 
what alone yon had a right to know, and what, if communicated, 
would have made an impression favourable to the cause of the 
Catholics, and you resorted to that which you had no right to know, 
aud by an unjustifiable perversion sought to make an impression ini¬ 
mical to that cause. For, sir, you were no more competent to re¬ 
port to the throne the proceedings of the committee of this house 
than any other member of the committee. It was not even neces¬ 
sary that yon should be present in that committee. Mr. Hatsell so 
says. It happened, however, that you were there, and that you 
gave your opinion on the bill in progress. Was it as Speaker that 
you gave that opinion ? Certainly not. You gave it as member 
for the University of Oxford. 

But it may be said that this is a question of mere form. Sir, the 
forms of parliament are essential to the preservation of the privileges 
of parliament. But, sir, in taking the liberty to report the opinions 
of that committee, did you truly report them ? On the contrary, you 
totally, though I am sure not wilfully, misrepresented them. The 
opposition to the proposition rejected in the committee was grounded 


plunket’s speeches. 


HO 

on a variety of considerations. Some opposed it in consequence ol 
the intemperate conduct of certain public bodies in Ireland ; others 
because of the writings which had been diffused in that country ; 
some wished the change to be deferred until a time of peace ; other *, 1 
were desirous that the see of Rome should first be consulted. 

With all this variety of sentiment, how, sir, were you competent 
to say what were the opinions by which the majority of this house 
on that occasion were swayed ? I will venture to assert, that not 
ten of that majority were perfectly agreed on that subject; and yet 
you took upon yourself, in the name of that majority, to declare your 
own opinion as theirs. Nay, even in that respect you were incorrect. 
The member for the University of Oxford has a right to complain 
that the Speaker misrepresented him. That right honourable member 
declared, that in his opinion, many powers and jurisdictions might 
be safely conferred on the Catholics. He declared that they might 
be eligible to the magistracy—there was jurisdiction; he declared 
that they might be raised to any rank in the army, except that of 
commander-in-chief—there was power; a jurisdiction and a power 
by no means harmless, if improperly used. Again, a great number 
of those who composed the majority, voted on the ground that the 
question was a religious one. Have those individuals no right to 
complain of the Speaker, for declaring that the house considered the 
question not as a religious, hut as a political one; and that if the 
see of Rome were released from foreign influence, the danger of al¬ 
lowing Catholics to sit in parliament would cease ? Will the member 
for Armagh, and those who think with him, consent thus to have 
their opposition disrobed of all those important considerations, which 
arise out of religious views of the subject? Will they allow the 
Catholics, if they disavow the supremacy of the Pope, to come here 
and legislate for Protestant England? In my judgment, therefore, 
sir, you misrepresented the opinion of the majority of this house, as 
well as your own. 

One striking fact you wholly abstained from mentioning. You 
never told the throne that, notwithstanding all the means used on the 
occasion, notwithstanding the temporary difficulties arising out of 
various causes, notwithstanding the powerful influence exercised in 
various quarters, there were still two hundred and forty-seven mem¬ 
bers of this house who declared their readiness to admit the Catho¬ 
lics into parliament on the principles of the bill which was then under 
discussion. Will any man lay his hand on his breast, and declare 
upon his honour, that he thinks you were authorized, on a decision 
by a majority of four, to represent to the crown, that the question 


THE SPEAKER’S ADDRESS. 


141 


was put finally at rest ? Was it not evident that the subject must 
return to be considered by parliament ? And if so brought back, 
with what impartiality could parliament proceed with respect to it, 
if, by any indirect means, the artillery of royal influence was brought 
to bear on their march ? 

Suppose, sir, that in reply to you his royal highness the Prince 
Regent had been pleased to say to you, “ I feel great surprise and ' 
indignation that two hundred and forty-seven members of the House 
of Commons are so lost to a sense of their duty, as to wish to change 
those laws by which the throne, the parliament, and the government 
of the country are made fundamentally Protestantwould any 
member of that minority have endured such an expression ? On the 
other hand, suppose his royal highness had said, “ I lament that 
the laborious exertions of so large a number of members of the 
House of Commons as two hundred and forty-seven have been dis¬ 
appointed ; and I trust when temporary obstacles are removed, and 
when the suggestions of reason and wisdom become prevalent, their 
efforts will prove successfulwould such a declaration have been 
endured by any member of the majority ? Would it not have been 
asked, what right the throne possessed to interfere with the proceed¬ 
ings of parliament, to school their past conduct, and to lecture their 
future ? 

And here, sir, I must observe, that an honourable gentleman on 
die floor (Mr. Bankes) has contended that there is no difficulty in 
this question, because your speech was not made until the end of the 
session. It is then of no importance if we subject ourselves to be 
schooled and lectured by the throne ; it is of no importance that we 
should be liable to this annual audit and account, provided it take 
place at the close of our sittings ! Such an occurrence would have 
no affect on the deliberations of the next session! And, besides, if 
this annual audit were once established, the honourable member for 
Corfe-Castle is too fond of accuracy not to think it necessary, sir, 
to add to your report a specification of the numbers of those who 
might vote on any particular measure, the names of the voters, and 
so on, until the whole of our mystery is exposed to the eye of 
royalty! 

With respect to your speech, sir, I have another observation to 
make ; it regards its ambiguity. The words of it are capable of two 
opposite constructions—of a construction unwarrantable, intolerant 
towards the Catholics, and of a construction as tolerant as their 
warmest friends could desire. You say, sir, that we have deter¬ 
mined to exclude them from the privileges which they require “ as 

K 


142 


plunket’s speeches. 


long as they shall obey a foreign jurisdiction.” Now, what does this 
expression mean ? If by “ foreign jurisdiction” is meant the spiri¬ 
tual jurisdiction of the Pope, then the Catholics will be excluded as 
long as they remain Catholics. But if it merely means temporal, or 
indeed ecclesiastical jurisdiction within the realm, then no friend of 
the Catholic cause in this house would, I am sure, wish it to prosper 
on any other terms. Again, sir, you say in your speech that par¬ 
liament have not consented to do so and so. I am persuaded that 
no special pleading will be resorted to in defence of this passage, 
and I appeal to the common sense of all who hear me, whether the 
statement that “ momentous changes had been proposed for our con- 
oideration, but that adhering to those laws by which the throne, the 
parliament, and the government of this countiy are made fundamen¬ 
tally Protestant, we would not consent to those changes.” Is it 
not a distinct implication of an intention in some persons, by propo¬ 
sing such changes, to destroy “ the laws by which the throne, the 
parliament, and the government of this country are made fundamen¬ 
tally Protestant ?” Sir, recollecting that one of the essential fea¬ 
tures of the resolutions on which the Catholic bill was founded was, 
the distinct declaration that the Protestant establishment should be 
effectually secured, I ask you, how you can reconcile to any feelings 
of justice the implied statement that two hundred and forty-seven 
members of this house were anxious to introduce changes subversive 
of that establishment? For one, I loudly disclaim my share of 
such an imputation. If there be here one man of that number who 
deserves it, let him take the only opportunity of proving his demerit, 
by voting for your exculpation. Sir, it is a proposition which every 
honourable gentleman present would not merely not consent to, but 
which he would reject with scorn and indignation. 

One word more. This speech, which in my opinion was a vio¬ 
lation of the privileges of parliament, and which misrepresented 
the conduct and sentiments of all parties, appears to me to have 
been wholly uncalled for. There was nothing, sir, in the bill which 
you held in your hand at the time you uttered it, or in any other 
bill which passed during the last session, that required such an expo¬ 
sition. When you adverted to the splendid victories of our illustrious 
commander who has gained such transcendant fame—when you 
spoke of the passage of the Douro, of the battles of Roleia, of 
Yimiera, of Talavera, of Salamanca, of Yittoria, the feelings of all 
who heard you vibrated in unison with your own. Every heart ex¬ 
ulted, and every Irish heart peculiarly exulted that Ireland had given 
birth to such a hero. Was that a well-chosen moment, sir, to pro- 


THE WAR OF 1815. 


143 


nounce the irrevocable doom of those who, under their immortal 
commander, had opened the sluices of their heart’s blood in the ser¬ 
vice of the empire ? It was the custom in Rome to introduce a 
slave into their triumphal processions, not for the purpose of insulting 
the captive, but to remind the conqueror of the instability of human 
glory. But you, sir, while you were binding the wreath round the 
brow of the conqueror, assured him that his victorious followers must 
never expect to participate in the fruits of his valour, but that they 
who had shed their blood in achieving conquests were to be the only 
persons who were not to share by the profits of success in the rights 
of citizens. 


THE WAR OF 1815. 

May 25, 1815. 

Immediately after Napoleon’s escape from Elba, the Prince Regent communi¬ 
cated to parliament by a message that he had resumed action with the allies, to 
redress the violation of the treaty of Paris. A large section of the Whigs, 
affected by the universal enthusiasm with which Napoleon had been received in 
France, were averse to a war that had merely for its purpose the proscription of 
one man, and he the favourite ruler of a powerful and warlike people. Accord¬ 
ingly, an amendment was moved to the address, expressly condemning the 
principle and policy of a war undertaken for the purpose “ of personally pro¬ 
scribing the present ruler of France.” Grattan led the debate, and his voice 
was still for war, in a speech the most celebrated of all his efforts in the British 
house, and which stirred England and Europe with the tones of a tocsin. It is 
curious to observe in this debate, decisive of the destinies of the world as it was, 
that the great voices are all Irish—Grattan, Plunket, Ponsonby, and Castle- 
reagh. Plunket’s speech is spoken of in contemporary accounts as an amazing 
effort; but it appears to be clumsily condensed in the reports, with the excep¬ 
tion of the concluding passages, which I print in the first person:— 


Mr. Plunket thought that the house was now, for the first time, 
called upon to give an opinion of the policy of peace or war, under 
the present circumstances of the country and of Europe. This was 
a question of the utmost importance, at all times, and under all cir¬ 
cumstances. It was important as it involved the fate of many human 
beings, who must be sacrificed in war: it was still more important, 
as it involved the fate of this country, and the other nations of Europe. 
He was ready to admit that, to which ever side we turned, we were 
encountered by dangers; and that we were so surrounded with evils, 
that nothing was left us but a choice of evils. He should consider 
that man as precipitate in his judgment, and a very rash counsellor, 


144 


plunket’s speeches. 


who would pretend, at present, to foretell either the duration or the 
issue of this war. He would have as little confidence in the judg¬ 
ment of any person who would say, that he considered that a peace 
negociated with Bonaparte would afford sufficient security to the 
country. 

He should have been well contented to have given a silent vote 
on the present occasion, if he had not found himself under the neces¬ 
sity of differing from those friends whom he so highly respected, 
with whom he had so long acted, and with whom he hoped long to 
act. Differing, however, so materially from them upon this question, 
he felt it necessary for his own justification, to explain to the house 
the grounds of his difference. In rising to answer the arguments of 
his right honourable friend who spoke last, he felt some consolation 
in being protected by the paramount ability of another right honour¬ 
able friend who sat near him (Mr. Grattan). It appeared to him 
that his right honourable friend who spoke last was completely mis¬ 
taken, when he conceived that the house was now called upon to give 
its sanction to all the stipulations of the treaty negotiated at the 
congress of Vienna. The house was not called upon for any such 
opinion. He could see no absurdity or impropriety in calling upon 
the house to sanction one part of a treaty, without calling for their 
opinion on all the points of it. Even if he were to admit the force 
of all the objections which had been made to other parts of the 
arrangements made at the congress of Vienna, he should still be most 
decidedly of opinion on the question now before the house, that we ought, 
in conjunction with our allies, to prosecute the war against Bona¬ 
parte. He really wished to hear the sincere opinion of the right 
honourable gentleman and his friend, as to what conduct the country 
ought to pursue under the present circumstances. Would any man 
say that we ought to make peace with Bonaparte, and war with our 
allies ? or would they say, that we should altogether desert our allies? 
It had been said, that we ought to negotiate with Bonaparte in con¬ 
cert with our allies. If it were then admitted, that we ought to ne¬ 
gotiate in concert with our allies, it must also be allowed, that if 
those negotiations were not successful, we must go to war with 
France in concert with those allies. IIow, then, was it possible to 
separate the cause of this country from that of the allies, even upon 
the supposition of trying negotiation instead of war ? 

He did not believe that any of those who recommended negotiations 
with Bonaparte would deny that those negotiations might be unsuc¬ 
cessful ; and if they were carried on in concert with our allies, we 
could no more desert them in ypar than in the negotiation. He 


TIIE WAR OF 1815. 


145 


was really at a loss to perceive how the argument on the present oc¬ 
casion could be at all helped, by finding faults in the conduct of the 
allies upon former occasions. The faithlessness of those powers (if 
they had been faithless) did not apply to the present question. If 
it was Austria and Prussia that were preparing an attack upon this 
couutry, then we might talk about their faithlessness on former oc¬ 
casions. It was, however, from France and the faithlessness of her 
government that danger to this country was apprehended. What 
answer was it to this apprehension, to say that other powers had 
been faithless too ? Such an answer had evidently nothing to do 
with the question now before the house. As long as France chose 
to submit to the government of Bonaparte, he could see that neither 
honour, nor peace, nor anything that was desirable for this country 
could be expected by entering into a negotiation with him. 

Sir, as to the right of interfering with the internal affairs of another 
country, I must admit, that so long as those internal arrangements 
do not menace the peace and security of other countries, there can 
be no right to interfere ; but when the internal arrangements of one 
country do plainly threaten the peace and security of others, it appears 
to me as clear as the light, that interference is justifiable. If it 
be asked, whether anything in the personal character of a ruler 
can justify other nations in not treating with him, I will answer 
by stating a supposed case. Suppose, then, that any nation should, 
in time of peace, put itself into an extraordinary state of preparation 
for war—if that nation should organize itself in such a manner as to 
be perpetually prepared for commencing offensive war—if that nation 
should embody itself under the command of a military chief of great 
talent and experience in the art of war—if, for 15 years, Europe 
had experienced that the efforts of that nation were uniformly directed 
to aggression, conquest, and spoliation—if Europe had been obliged 
in self-defence to carry its arms into the heart of that country—if the 
capital of that country were taken—if the conquerors in their magna¬ 
nimity and moderation offered a peace which was accepted with gra¬ 
titude—if that treaty was accepted with gratitude by the individual 
who abdicated the throne—and yet if, after ten months, that guilty 
individual should be recalled by a licentious soldiery, for the purpose of 
fresh aggression—am I then to be told in this house, that neither 
we nor the other nations of Europe have any right of interference 
with the internal arrangements of such a nation ? How does it hap¬ 
pen that the just and legitimate sovereign of France has been driven 
from his throne ? It is because his unambitious virtue made him 


146 


plunket’s speeches. 


appear to the soldiery, not to be a proper instrument to wield the 
unsocial and unnatural energies of the French empire. If it be 
said that personal character has nothing to do with the question, 
then I ask, why was the treaty of Paris ever entered into ? That 
treaty turned entirely on personal character, and stipulations were 
considered satisfactory when made with the lawful sovereign of 
France, that would never have been entered into with Bonaparte. If 
we are to take the common feeling of mankind upon this subject, 
we must recollect how universally the abdication of Bonaparte was 
hailed in this country, as an event more important than the most 
brilliant victories. But the question now is not merely with Bona¬ 
parte, it is with France. She has purchased the benefits of 
the treaty of Paris, by giving up Bonaparte, and taking her lawful 
sovereign, in whom Europe has confidence. If we are now to de¬ 
clare that we are ready to treat w r ith Bonaparte, it will at once 
put an end to the coalition. If we are to tell the French people 
that we are ready to negotiate with Bonaparte as their ruler, it 
will at once destroy all the hopes that might now fairly be enter¬ 
tained of the co-operation of a considerable portion of that nation. 
When, however, we see the situation in which Bonaparte now 
stands; when we see him reduced to make professions contrary to 
his very nature; when we see the vessel in which his fortunes are 
embarked labouring with the storm, and its mast bowed down to the 
water’s edge, it would be the height of impolicy and absurdity to 
hesitate on the course that we ought to pursue. We have now a most 
powerful combination of allies, not fomented by us, but acting from 
the moral feeling which pervades all Europe. If we are foolish 
enough to throw away those means, we can never hope to recall 
them. Such of my friends as have talked the most about husband¬ 
ing the resources of the country, have confessed that when an occa¬ 
sion should arrive, when some important blow might be struck against 
the enemy, that system should no longer be persevered in. The 
important crisis has now arrived. It is vain to expect that a more 
favourable opportunity will ever arise. All the great powers of 
Europe are now with us, and a considerable portion of the popula¬ 
tion of France. 

It has been said, that invading France would be the way to unite 
the population of that country. The fact, however, is directly the 
reverse. The not invading France would be the sure means of re¬ 
ducing the whole population under the power of the present ruler. 

1 oonsider that we have, in fact, no option between peace and war. 
As for peace, we can have no more than a feverish, unrefreshing 


THE NAVY ESTIMATES. 


147 


dream of peace, still haunted by the spectre of war. In point of 
finances, we would find a peace with a war establishment, an evil 
much greater than war itself. If we do not now go to war in con¬ 
junction with all the great powers of Europe, we shall soon be re¬ 
duced to a war single-handed against France. If we do not now 
invade France, and carry on the war upon her territories, the time 
may arrive when our country will become the seat of war, and 
we shall fall unpitied and despised. If we now turn our back upon 
the great powers that are our allies, we shall deserve that all nations 
should turn their backs upon us, when we begin to feel the conse¬ 
quences of our impolicy. 


THE NAVY ESTIMATES. 

March 27, 1816. 

Instantly upon the declaration of peace, economy and retrenchment became 
the cry of all the country—a cry which Castlereagli, who professed a profound 
contempt for “ the ignorant impatience of taxation” which prevailed, was not 
disposed to gratify too abruptly. Such retrenchments as he did allow were, as 
the opposition complained, in many cases made rather with a reference to per¬ 
sonal than to public interests. About forty millions of taxes were abated, in 
almost all the departments salaries and allowances were reduced by regular rule 
from a war to a peace standard; but in the admiralty, where Castlereagh’s 
vroteg'e and Plunket’s opponent, Croker, was secretary, a special order decreed that 
the war salaries should be continued. This order produced several angry de¬ 
bates, in which the inconsistency of Castlereagh’s economy was exposed by 
Brougham, Tierney, Methuen, Ponsonby, Cavendish, and defended with a con¬ 
tinual shifting of his ground by Castlereagli himself and by Croker. Plunket’s 
speech reminds us of his old harangues against Castlereagli in the Irish house: 

Mr. Plunket, in rising to address the committee, was too well aware 
of the lateness of the hour, to encroach at any length on their time. 
At the same time he felt it would be doing injustice to his own feel¬ 
ings, to the interests of his constituents, and the sacred rights of 
British subjects, not to express the sentiments he entertained on the 
line of conduct adopted by administration. Before proceeding further, 
he would beg leave to ask, whether the salaries of the secretaries of 
the admiralty were to be regulated by the difference between a state 
of peace and war? or, in other words, whether the salary of Mr. 
Croker was to be reduced to £3000 in peace ? 

[This question being answered in the Affirmative, the honourable and learned 
member proceeded.] 


148 


plunket’s speeches. 


He was gratified to learn that this distinction had at last been re¬ 
luctantly acceded to by his majesty’s ministers. The line of conduct 
adopted by the noble lord, was one of the most extraordinary that the 
House of Commons or the British nation had ever witnessed in any 
minister of the crown. On a former occasion when that distinction 
had been pressed in a forcible manner on the attention of the house 
by an honourable member (Mr. Methuen), the noble lord had de¬ 
cidedly given his negative to it: and yet now, with an inconsistency 
which must strike even the most careless observer, he gave it his sup¬ 
port. 

I call on the noble lord, I call on his honourable colleagues in 
office, I call on the gentlemen who usually support his measures, to 
say, if in that line of conduct there has been the least justice or 
fairness. I call on country gentlemen on the opposite side of the 
house to lay their hands on their hearts, dispassionately to weigh 
every circumstance which has characterized the proceedings of the 
j noble lord, and to ask themselves how they can, consistently with 
a regard to conscience, face their constituents and say they have ho¬ 
nestly done their duty ? I do not impute to the noble lord any 
unworthy motives. I cannot for one moment suppose that he is 
actuated by any desire of degrading this house in the eyes of the 
world. I trust in God there will never be a public functionary in 
Britain capable of such conduct. But when I consider the procedure 
of the noble lord—when I contemplate the inconsistency which has 
characterised him throughout, I must appeal to the feelings of every 
honest man in this house, whether there is not an evident design to 
oppose whatever is proposed on this side of the house, without the 
smallest regard to whether the measure proposed by us be right or 
wrong ? The honourable member for Wiltshire one day proposes a 
measure which the noble lord reprobates as improper, and yet next 
day he comes down to the house and adopts the very measure he had 
reprobated. Sir, it is high time for gentlemen accustomed to follow in 
the noble lord’s train to think whether, in consistency with their own 
credit as British senators, with their fidelity to their constituents, 
and, I will add, with their dignity as men, they can any longer be so 
blinded by prejudice as to become the tools of the noble lord. For, 
I will ask, how does the noble lord use them ? He gives them the 
odium of supporting measures which he afterwards takes to himself 
the grace of retracting. Sir, 1 regret to be under the necessity of say¬ 
ing so much, but I feel it to be my duty, and should certainly consider 
myself guilty of an omission of duty had I not so spoken. I do 
not believe, indeed it is impossible for me to believe, that gentlemen 


THE NAVY ESTIMATES. 


149 


wish to degrade the House of Commons, but how can they vote in 
consistency with their own character, if they for one moment consider 
the tactics of the noble lord. The resolution for economy is now 
agreed to. This is so far very well; but why was it not agreed to 
before? The answer is obvious. It was for the best of all possible 
reasons—because the noble lord and his colleagues would not suffer so 
dangerous a term as the word economy to be registered on the jour¬ 
nals of this house. 

In a very fine pompons manner the committee are told of the 
difference between tLe last year of war and the first year of peace. 
No doubt, sir, the expenses of the first year of peace must be admitted 
to equal those of the last year of war. But there are elements for 
retrenchment which a minister alive to the interests of his country 
might lay hold of. These have in a satisfactory manner been pointed 
out by my right honourable friend (Mr. Tierney), who, in a manner 
that must flash conviction on every mind, has, item by item, showed 
that instead of being lessened they have been increased. No symptoms 
whatever of a voluntary nature have been shown by government for 
any retrenchment. Government now stand in the situation of men 
on their trial. Clamour, an ignorant impatience for relaxation from 
taxation, and a thousand similar motives has been applied to the 
people for expressing their detestation of the policy of ministers. 
But I call on gentlemen in this house, whose minds are unfettered 
by prejudice, I call on them in conscience to say whether they can 
believe ministers had ever one serious thought of retrenchment, had it 
not been for this clamour, this “ ignorant impatience.” I tell the 
noble lord that that clamour has compelled him to do his duty so far, 
and may perhaps, if he does not take care, clamour him out of office. 

A very nice distinction has been made between clamour out of 
doors and clamour within doors. Sir, what does this mean ? Why, 
it means simply this. Had the members who presented petitions—or 
rather the remonstrances of “ ignorant impatience”—to the house, 
ushered them quietly, with all that suavity and smoothness so hap¬ 
pily practised on the opposite side, there would have been no clamour. 
But because they did, in a manly constitutional manner, scorn to 
abandon their duty—because they introduced the clamours of the peo¬ 
ple, excited by the dereliction of the ministers from their fidelity— 
because they have made these walls to re-echo with their determined 
opposition to the attempts made to press down a people already worn 
out, they are charged by the noble lord with making a clamour. 
The people have, however, assembled and asserted their rights; they 
have expressed their abhorrence of a most detestable, unjust, and 


150 


plunket’s speeches. 


le attempt 


inquisitorial tax; they have declared their indignation at the attempt 
of the government to cover the soil of the country with armies; in a 
word, they have called loudly and unanimously for retrenchment and 


economy; and the members of this house will grossly abandon their 
duty, if they do not attend to the voices of their constituents. This 
may be clamour in the opinion of the noble lord, but let the country 
gentlemen remember, that it is in consequence of these sentiments 
re-echoed through the country, that anything has been obtained. The 
people have put their representatives on their trial, and the house has 
been electrified. The noble lord and his colleagues are doubtless 
alarmed at these proceedings ; but there is a general cry for retrench¬ 
ment and economy which cannot be put down. The noble lord may 
attempt it, but the result of his experiment will be, that the voice of 
the people will only be raised more loudly, and they may very soon 
put down him and his colleagues. 


THE STATE OF IRELAND. 

April 26, 1816. 

Sir John Newport, in one of the ablest speeches ever delivered upon Ireland 
in the House of Commons, called upon the government to change their coercive 
policy. 25,000 men were quartered upon the country, and six counties pro¬ 
claimed under an insurrection act of atrocious rigour. Peel was then chief 
secretary, and believed in no remedy for Irish ills but the bayonet and gibbet. 
He replied to Newport, and was followed by Plunket: — 

Mr. Plunket began by expressing his warmest gratitude to his 
right honourable friend, for calling the attention of the house to this 
most important subject, and for the peculiarly able manner in which he 
had sustained the motion. The state of Ireland -was indeed a ques¬ 
tion in which Great Britain must feel a direct and immediate inter¬ 
est, and therefore it claimed, as no doubt it would receive, the 
fullest consideration in that house. To illustrate that interest, and 
enforce that claim, he could not think it necessary to add much to 
the impressive speech of his right honourable friend. For that speech 
presented the most valuable variety of local, political, and constitu¬ 
tional knowledge. It was indeed so distinguished for accuracy of infor¬ 
mation, that he should have to occupy the attention of the house but for 
a short time. He particularly applauded his right honourable friend’s 
epeech in consequence of its complete freedom from any alloy of party 
spirit. The question was indeed too important to be sunk into any 


THE STATE OP IRELAND. 


151 


mixture with party or faction. Last year the insurrection act was 
passed, and though he was not present, he had no hesitation in say¬ 
ing, that if he had been so, he would have supported the measure, 
although it did go the length of suspending the enjoyment of the 
constitution during the period in which it remained in force. In the 
year 1796, and on other occasions, similar acts had been passed, but 
they were seldom enforced. It was now two months, however, since 
the right honourable gentleman who was the author of this measure 
last session, had mentioned to the house the necessity of carrying it 
into execution. The county of Tipperary, and tuat of Westmeath, 
were disturbed, and the country was in such a state as to render a 
military force of 25,000 men necessary for suppressing the spirit of 
revolt and tumult. Soon afterwards two other counties were added 
to this mass of confusion and disorder, and now there were no fewer 
than six declared in a state of disturbance. The military force was 
increased, but the evils were not diminished; tumult and disorder 
were rather augmented than suppressed; and he would tell the right 
honourable gentleman, that if matters did not soon change, 40,000 
men would be found insufficient to perform the duty for which 25,000 
were now deemed adequate. This was such an alarming state of 
things, that it could receive no aggravation from fancy—could admit 
of no additional colouring from fear or apprehension. It pressed 
upon the house with a weight of interest which no consideration 
could increase. The natives of Ireland were celebrated for their 
gratitude for benefits conferred—their fine and ardent feelings were 
almost proverbial—nor could slight injuries rouse them to revenge. 
The present deplorable state of that country showed, therefore in¬ 
disputably, that some intrinsic vice was in the government, which 
must be removed before tranquillity was restored. 

He did not find that the right honourable gentleman professed to 
apply any remedies to those evils which he admitted to exist; and, 
in truth, if certain doctrines which he had advanced were to be consi- 
deredasthe sortof remedy which theright honourable gentleman might 
feel disposed to apply, he most cordially and most sincerely thanked 
him that he had abstained from the application. The two remedies 
of the right honourable gentleman, if he might venture to call them 
such, were referable, first to absentees, and secondly to forty shilling 
freeholders. With respect to the absentees, he wished with all his 
heart they were fewer ; he wished for the sake of Ireland, that she 
possessed a more numerous resident gentry. But how was that to be 
accomplished ? The right honourable gentleman had suggested no 
means, but seemed to trust merely to the powers of persuasion. Ho 


152 


plunket’s speeches. 


did not wish to underrate the right honourable gentleman’s eloquence, 
though he was certainly afraid it would not be found an instrument 
sufficiently powerful to induce the gentry of Ireland to reside on 
their estates. If the right honourable gentleman meant to go fur¬ 
ther than persuasion—if he contemplated the idea of legislative in¬ 
terference—then he would say to him, repeal the Union, send back 
again to Ireland her parliament, restore that portion of rank and 
property and influence which she possessed before, and which 
had been drawn from her by the inevitable operation of that mea¬ 
sure. If the right honourable gentleman was prepared to go so far, 
then, indeed, he would admit that his observations were a proper 
forerunner of his intentions; but, otherwise, situated as Ireland now 
was, the question of absentees was one which no wise statesman 
would venture to touch. As to any connexion that might be sup¬ 
posed to subsist between the present disturbances in Ireland, and the 
effects produced by absentee gentry, he would venture to say that in 
those districts where outrage was most prevalent the grievance of 
the absentees was least felt. 

The next topic to which he wished to refer, was that of the forty 
shilling franchises. He was not quite sure whether he accurately 
comprehended what fell from the right honourable gentleman, and 
he was most anxious to avoid anything which might be construed 
into misrepresentation. The right honourable gentleman would set 
him right if he erred; but he understood him to speak of the act of 
1793, as that act by w r hich the elective franchise was originally 
granted. 

Mr. Peel rose to explain. He said he mentioned the act of 1793, not as hay¬ 
ing originally granted the elective franchise, but as having extended its privi¬ 
leges to the Catholics. 

Mr. Plunket continued. The act of 1793, then, was alluded to 
by the right honourable gentleman, merely as having extended those pri¬ 
vileges which had previously been enjoyed by the Protestants of Ireland, 
to the Catholics of Ireland. Taking the argument upon that ground, 
he was prepared to contend, that if that act were repealed, it would 
be disfranchising the Catholics. He would say further, that if the right 
honourable gentleman had studiously contrived a firebrand calculated 
to precipitate into immediate explosion the combustibles now scattered 
all over Ireland—if he had laboured night and day to discover what 
means were most likely to consummate the mischief—he could not 
have hit upon a more certain one than to propose to disfranchise the 
Irish Catholics. 


THE STATE OF IRELAND. 


153 


Mr. Peel rose to explain. He said he was sorry to interrupt the right 
honourable and learned gentleman again, but he was tempted to avail himself 
of his candid offer, and that desire which he had manifested not to misinterpret 
him. In speaking of the act of 1793, he expressly said that he did not com¬ 
plain of it because it extended the elective franchise to the Catholics. What he 
complained of was, the great abuses to which that act had been perverted. 
The way in which the Catholic freeholders acquired their right presented oppor¬ 
tunities for the grossest perjury. It had never entered into his contemplation 
to withdraw those franchises, but he lamented the way in which those fictitious 
franchises were created. 

Mr. Plunket said, he was most happy at being set right, though 
he believed he had erred in common with a great number of persons as 
to what had fallen from the right honourable gentleman. lie should 
now proceed to the consideration of the question generally, and he must 
say, it struck him as somewhat extraordinary, that the government 
did* not seem prepared to propose any specific remedies for the many 
evils, the existence of which no one denied. He would except, in¬ 
deed, what had fallen from the right honourable gentleman upon the 
nomination of the sheriffs. For that he was entitled to much appro¬ 
bation, for he was sure it would be productive of infinite good to Ire¬ 
land ; but if he imagined it was calculated, alone, to allay the fer¬ 
ments that now existed, he had much mistaken the real influence and 
operation of that system. The only thing upon which the right 
honourable gentleman seemed to rely as an effectual method of remedy¬ 
ing the grievances felt in Ireland, was the diffusion of education ; and 
he hoped he should not be considered as undervaluing the importance 
of education in what he was about to say. The most beneficial effect of 
education, in his opinion, was, that it brought the lower and the higher 
classes into connexion by acts of beneficence and kindness. But if, 
by education, the right honourable gentleman meant merely that the 
Irish should be instructed in reading, writing, and accounts, he really 
believed it would be found that the people of Ireland were no more 
deficient in those things than the people of this country. Nay, if a 
distinction were taken between the two countries, he believed it would 
be in favour of Ireland. In those public bodies of men, where the in¬ 
habitants of the two countries were brought together, as the army, 
for instance, he would venture to say that the number of Irishmen 
■who could read and write, was greater in proportion than the number 
of Englishmen. But really, to talk of carrying on the education of 
a people, by teaching them to read and write merely, was a gross 
and childish misapplication of the word. The education of a people 
must grow out of the government of the country. It must spring 
from that paternal care, and from that equal protection of the laws 



154 


plunket’s speeches. 


which insensibly formed the habits of the citizen to a peaceable and 
correct demeanor. What was it that made every man in England 
interested in the preservation of pnblic order, tranquillity, and obe¬ 
dience to the laws ? Because every man in England knew that the 
law was his friend and his protector : he cherished it as his birth¬ 
right, and he regarded those who administered it, as labouring with 
himself for the general good of the commonwealth. Give that edu¬ 
cation to Ireland, and Ireland would receive it as a boon. Teach the 
people how to respect the laws, and they would be taught how to be 
happy But where was the utility of teaching them reading and 
figures ? To count property which they did not possess, and to read 
about that liberty which they did not enjoy ? 

With respect to the motion of his right honourable friend, he pro¬ 
tested he could not comprehend why it should be frittered down in 
the way which was proposed by the amendment. What reasons 
had been urged to show the probability that less than 25,000 men 
would be wanted for Ireland next year ? And if 25,000 men were 
then wanted, why not forty, nay, a hundred thousand, hereafter ? 
The evils which afflicted Ireland, whatever they were, would not 
remain stationary. They must be put down, or they would pro¬ 
gressively increase. If, then, it was intended to maintain a force of 
25,000 men permanently in Ireland; and if the insurrection act was 
to be continued; if the people of that country were to be subjected 
to domiciliary visits in the night, to be liable to be imprisoned, and 
even transported, not by the verdict of a jury, but by summary com¬ 
mitment : if all these terrible miseries were to be inflicted by the aid 
of the bayonet, he would say that that house would neglect—would 
grossly abandon—its duty, if they refused to inquire why such 
things were necessary, and how they might be avoided. Where was 
the use of knowing the extent of the mischief, if they were to be 
precluded from examining into the causes ? The reason why it was 
wished to have information upon the one was, that they might 
afterwards inquire into the other. He would willingly admit 
that he must be a bold man who would pretend to affirm that he 
knew what remedies would effectually remove the evils now exist- 
. mg; but he would be a much bolder man who should presume to 
leave the country under the hopeless curse of those measures which 
had so long afflicted and degraded it. Exile and death were not 
the instruments of government; but the miserable expedients which 
showed the absence of all government. The sources of public autho¬ 
rity were dried up; and that house ought to rescue the people of 
Ireland from such a desperate state of outlawry and degradation. 


THE STATE OF IRELAND. 


155 


The state of Ireland was a sort of gordon knot which they could not 
untie, and refused the aid of parliament, whose duty it was to inter¬ 
pose in behalf of a suffering people. His right honourable friend 
had prudently abstained from discussing the question of Catholic 
emancipation, and he would follow his example; but at the same 
time, when they were called upon to decide so important a subject 
as the present, he would not be deterred by the fear of having one 
vote less, or the hope of one vote more, from expressing his opinion. 
He would not say that Catholic emancipation was a charm which 
would allay every discontent and remove every grievance; but he 
would say that it was a sine qud non , and that without it no other 
system of measures could be entirely prosperous. 

He would now take the liberty of pointing out a few of those 
causes which, he conceived, had contributed to place Ireland in her 
present unfortunate condition. He declared that he felt no personal 
animosities towards any member of the Irish government; on the 
contrary, for the lord lieutenant, and for his noble friend at the head 
of the law department, he entertained the highest respect. In the 
first place, it was but too well known that there were a number of 
discontented agitators in that countiy, who sought every means of 
disturbing its tranquillity. But it was equally true that there was 
a great proportion of the Catholic population as different in their 
principles and conduct from those unprincipled agitators as if they 
were not of the same class. Those persons cherished legitimate and 
honourable objects of ambition, and earnestly desired to be admitted 
within the pale of the constitution; but he would put it to the can¬ 
dour and sincerity of the right honourable gentleman, whether the 
government of Ireland had ever attempted to separate the sound from 
the unsound portion of the Catholic body ? He could not say that 
such an attempt had ever been made ; and that, he firmly believed, 
was one cause of the present infuriated aud inflamed state of the. 
countiy. 

The state of the press in Ireland had been referred to, and no 
man could deny that i-t was most licentious, having been made the 
instrument of wild demagogues to advance their own projects of 
ambition. But was this all ? Had it not been also most unjustifu. 
ably employed on the other side ? Had not those papers which were 
paid highly for the insertion of government proclamations, been 
made the vehicles of the most scandalous, malignant, and indiscrimi¬ 
nate libels upon the whole Catholic body? Was this dealing fairly 
by the people of Ireland, distracted by political and religious differ¬ 
ences? He did not accuse the government of encouraging these 



156 


plunket’s speeches. 


disgraceful practices, but he complained that it had not interfered to 
control them. The Orange societies were another source of the pre¬ 
sent evils, and in speaking of them the right honourable gentleman, 
without his usual candour, had perverted, in his absence, the argu¬ 
ment of his right honourable friend. The objection to them was, 
not that they celebrated anniversaries, or that they played particular 
tunes, but that they were societies exclusively Protestant, bound by 
an illegal oath to continue their allegiance only so long as the king 
supported what they termed a Protestant constitution. What stepe 
would not the right honourable gentleman have thought it right to 
take, had Catholics been so illegally united for the purpose of sup¬ 
porting only a Catholic sovereign ? It was no answer to state that 
the Orange societies would be punished when their acts were illegal, 
for their very constitution was a breach of the law, for which they 
were amenable. It might be true that the evil was less among the 
higher classes; but among the lower these associations of Protes¬ 
tants degenerated into the most brutal and offensive assertion of supe¬ 
riority over the whole Catholic body. Another point likewise de¬ 
served notice. It would not be denied, that of all people the Irish 
were most subject to the influence of their priesthood, and the first 
act of a prudent government would have been to establish with that 
priesthood an amicable connexion; yet no attempt of the kind had 
been made; on the contrary, in the only instance that had occurred, 
they had given, as it were, designed offence to that very respectable 
body. A priest of the county of Limerick had been instrumental 
in quelling a disturbance, for which a letter of thanks from the right 
honourable gentleman was sent to him; but, before it could reach 
.his hands, it was published in the newspapers, and this reverend 
gentleman was thus held up to the suspicion of all his fraternity and 
his flock as a person aiding the tyrannical purposes of government. 
There were many important differences between the present and for¬ 
mer disturbances. From the highest authority it had been stated, 
that within the last fifty years the commerce of Ireland had doubled, 
her agricultural produce had increased fourfold, and her population 
had trebled. Thus it appeared that she was capable of becoming 
the dangerous rival, or the powerful friend, of England; a gigantic 
form was rising at the side of Great Britain, and the question now 
was, whether it should be converted into a friend or an enemy. Six¬ 
teen years had elapsed since the union had professed to give to Ire¬ 
land the benefits of the British constitution; yet now that constitu¬ 
tion was to be suspended, and the natives of that country were to be 
deprived of its benefits. What would be thought of a proposition 


THE WINDOW TAX. 


157 


of the like kind with respect to any portion of Great Britain, how¬ 
ever small ? And yet upon the whole of Maud this calamity was 
to be inflicted almost without repugnance. Such a state of things 
—-such gross injustice and inequality—could not be endured with 
patience ; and the longer the system was pursued, the greater would 
be the evil to be remedied. It was erroneous, too, in point of ex¬ 
penditure. The whole military force must be paid by this country, 
for Ireland could not produce any revenue, in consequence of the 
miscalculation at the time of the union as to the contribution she was 
to provide. Her debt, since the year 1800, had increased fourfold, 
no part of which was expended in the country, as was the case in 
England. On the whole view of the case, the only advice he would 
take upon himself to give ministers was, that they should retrace as 
exactly as possible the steps they had pursued in the government of 
Ireland; instead of establishing themselves on the narrow, odious 
principle of Protestant exclusion, which kept alive the spirit of dis¬ 
sension, he earnestly recommended them to adopt measures calcu¬ 
lated to secure the union and happiness of all classes. 


THE WINDOW TAX. 

April 21, 1818. 

Mr. Shaw (afterwards Sir Robert) was an uncompromising anti-Unionist, and, 
continuing to represent Dublin in the British parliament, acted with the small 
party—Grattan, Plunket, Ponsonby, Newport, and their friends, who worked 
together in an Irish spirit on Irish questions. Sir Robert had neither the 
statesmanlike conceptions nor the natural eloquence of his friends; but his 
clear common sense, his skill in business, and the independent probity of his 
character did them service and honour. The great event of his parliamentary 
career was the abatement of that uncomfortable and oppressive impost, the 
window tax. It had been imposed upon Ireland in the last days of the Irish 
parliament professedly as a war tax, and with a pledge of its removal whenever 
peace came to pass. Peace came; but although at one stroke fourteen millions 
of property tax were taken off the people of England, the Chancellor of the Ex¬ 
chequer manifested very little disposition to decrease the burdens of Ireland. 
The case for reference to a committee, with a view to the repeal of the tax, was 
stated with care, moderation, and point by Mr. Shaw, and Plunket rose to sup¬ 
port him, after the Chancellor had replied on the part of the government:— 

Mr. Plunket regretted that the motion of his honourable friend, 
introduced as it was with so much candour, moderation, and pro¬ 
priety, had not been acceded to by the right honourable gentleman. 
In the course of his speech, the right honourable gentleman had es> 

L 


158 


plunket’s speeches. 


pressed the utmost desire to grant every relief in his power to the 
people of Ireland; but the line of conduct he had pursued was by 
no means an exemplification of such a disposition. To prove that 
this was not a war tax, the right honourable gentleman had referred 
to observations made by the Irish chancellor of the exchequer. He 
begged leave, in addition to this, to refer the right honourable gen¬ 
tleman to the language of the acts of parliament themselves. The 
right honourable gentleman would there see clear, direct, and specific 
evidence, that the tax was only intended as a war tax. It was first 
introduced in 1799, and the house would find, by the 40th of the King, 
cap. 4, that the tax was granted for the purpose of keeping up an effec¬ 
tive force of 49,973 men—that was for the express purpose of main¬ 
taining a war establishment. It was recited, in the body of the act, that 
the tax was laid on for this purpose, and for no other. If it were 
not then a war tax—completely incapable of being explained away 
—he was utterly at a loss to know what a war tax was. In the 
same session the act of the 40th of the king, c. 52, was passed. By 
this act, certain regulations were introduced, “for the better collect¬ 
ing rates and taxes on dwelling-houses inhabited, in respect of win¬ 
dows and lights therein, and to prevent frauds—be it enacted, that 
those houses built before the 1st of January, 1799, shall be rated, 
according to the windows they then had, for three years from and 
after the passing of the said act, provided the present war shall so 
long continue.” Now it did surprise him, how the right honourable 
gentleman, whose acute mind could not have suffered this act of par¬ 
liament to have passed unnoticed, could, after a reference to it, have 
had any doubt on the subject of the nature of the tax. But, if he 
still retained a doubt, he hoped it would not extend beyond the pre¬ 
cincts of his own mind, and that the house would agree in opinion, 
that the tax was clearly a war tax. If, then, it was a war tax, he 
would proco?d to examine the ground on which the right honourable 
gentleman refused to put an end to it, when an end had been put to 
the war. He stated, that at the peace of Amiens, the chancellor of 
the exchequer, Mr. Corry, who had proposed the tax, did not think 
it right to move for a repeal of it. Now, it did not appear to him 
to be a fair inference, because a chancellor of the exchequer was not 
in the greatest hurry—did not seize the earliest opportunity—to re¬ 
move the burdens of the people, that therefore no pledge for their 
removal had been given. In the short period during which peace then 
prevailed, it was not surprising, perhaps, that the tax was not taken 
off. But the people having suffered injustice for a certain period of 
time, did not furnish a good argument for refusing to do them jus- 


THE WINDOW TAX. 


159 


tice, when their eyes were opened and they applied for redress. 
The right honourable gentleman said, it would be a breach of faith 
with the public creditor, if it were repealed, when it was pledged as 
a security for a part of the charge on the consolidated fund. The 
right honourable gentleman had, he conceived, supplied him with an 
answer to this argument. He was himself ready to give up 25 per 
cent, of this tax. He was willing to break one-fourth of his good 
faith with the public creditor. In point of principle, he here gave up 
his whole argument: he left it without support. 

He (Mr. P.) would wish to keep faith inviolate with the public 
creditors. Some other tax must be found to pay them ; but it was 
for the right honourable gentleman to devise a tax for that purpose, 
and not for his honourable friend, who made the present motion, to 
supply him with ways and means. He protested, the more he con¬ 
sidered the admissions contained in the right honourable gentleman’s 
statement, the more he was surprised at his opposing the proposition 
for a committee, since a committee was the proper place to consider 
what modifications ought to be made in the tax. He should now 
shortly advert to the produce of the tax. In 1810, it produced 
£173,509. An additional duty of 50 per cent, was then laid on; 
which, supposing the same number of windows continued to be used, 
ought to have produced £347,018. An additional duty of 25 per 
cent, was afterwards imposed, which, on the last-mentioned sum, should 
have given £86,750. The whole amount of the tax, then, accord¬ 
ing to his calculation, supposing the entire number of windows to 
have been used, which were taxed in 1810, would be £427,277. 
Now what was the fact ? In the last year, it amounted to £302,014, 
which left a deficit nearer to one-third than one quarter of the 
estimated produce of the tax. If this were the fact, it was not 
difficult to discover the quantity of windows stopped up, and the 
measure of light and air of which the people of Ireland had been de¬ 
prived. The right honourable gentleman said that Ireland had not 
paid her fair contribution to the exigencies of the empire. This was 
a position to which he could not accede. Ireland certainly had not 
paid the 2-17ths stipulated for at the time of the Union; and for the 
plainest of all possible reasons, because she could not—because a 
burden utterly disproportioned to her strength had been imposed on 
her. What had been her exertions ? The sum now paid into the 
treasury was three times the amount of her nett income at the time 
of the Union, and, notwithstanding this, the debt of Ireland had in¬ 
creased nearly fivefold since that event. Was not this a proof that, 
at the time of the Union, a mistaken estimate had been made of her 



1 GO 


PLUNKET'S SPEECHES. 


powers ? The statement sounded very well at the time. It was 
gratifying to the people of this country to be told—“ You are very 
much in debt, it is true—but Ireland is to pay a considerable portion 
of it.” They were now, however, dealing with sober realities. Ire¬ 
land would not, for she could not pay it. On this country it must 
fall. Ireland could not exert herself beyond her strength—she could 
not pay beyond her means. Every part of the empire ought to sup¬ 
port the state, and contribute to its exigencies, according to the ex¬ 
tent of its -ability. He hoped he should not be looked on as an indi¬ 
vidual, who, in his place in that house, w r ould advise any portion of 
the people to shrink from bearing their fair share of the public bur¬ 
dens ; but resources could not be wrung from an exhausted popula¬ 
tion. This tax was utterly odious and hateful in Ireland. It was, 
therefore, the duty of the right honourable gentleman to find some 
means of filling up any deficiency which its repeal might create, and 
to bow to the generally-expressed sense of the country. Those who 
called for the repeal, stood on the ground of the faith of parliament, 
and on the principle that a war tax should not be continued in time 
of peace. War taxes to the amount of £17,000,000 were remitted 
to the people of this country, while a trifling relief of £200,000 or 
£300,000 was alone granted to Ireland. 

The right honourable gentleman had stated, in his place, that it 
was most important to continue the income tax; he had declared 
that the business of the country could not be carried on without it. 
But the house thought it was just and proper that it should be re¬ 
moved. And, after parliament had declared its sentiments on the 
subject, what was the conduct of the right honourable gentleman ? 
He felt that it was necessary to pay due deference to their opinion 
—he came down to the house, and, voluntarily, gave up the war 
malt tax. He begged leave to ask, how the right honourable gen¬ 
tleman, acting in his financial capacity for the whole empire, having 
listened to the voice of the English people, conveyed through their 
representatives—having obeyed their call, and given up the income 
tax—could now refuse to bow to the sentiments of the people of Ire¬ 
land, expressed in the most unequivocal and most constitutional 
manner ? He spoke warmly—nor was it wonderful that he should, 
seeing what he had seen in that country with which he was imme¬ 
diately connected—but he meant nothing offensive to the right 
honourable gentleman, whose wishes for the welfare of Ireland, were, 
he believed, sincere. The right honourable gentleman had observed, 
that some relief, granted at the present time, would have a much 
better effect than any that could be produced by waiting for the 


THE PETERLOO MASSACRE. 


1G1 


result of the deliberations of a committee. He, however, could see 
nothing to prevent the right honourable gentleman from granting 
that relief, and acceding also to the proposition for a committee. 
The committee, he might rest assured, would throw no impediment 
in the way of any relief he might be inclined to grant. Indeed, 
having received the boon of which the right honourable gentleman 
had spoken, the committee could go to work with more spirit. 
Were the right honourable gentleman to go back to Dublin—were he 
to notice the unhappy beings whom he would meet in every direction 
—were he to mark their meagre and famished countenances, and to 
witness the despair which characterised their looks—were he to 
know the disappointment which had settled in the minds of the bet¬ 
ter order of people, deprived as they were of their ordinary comforts 
—he could not avoid feeling a great anxiety, if it could be recon¬ 
ciled with the public interest, to remove those burdens which pressed 
most heavily on the people of Ireland. 

The motion was defeated by a majority of 1G ; but the Chancellor consented to 
an abatement of 25 per cent, of the tax. Sir Robert Shaw obtained and deserved 
the credit of abolishing it. 


THE PETERLOO MASSACRE. 

November 23, 1819. 

The extraordinary English prosperity of the year 1818 was by a single act of 
parliament, passed without a dissentient voice, turned in the course of a few 
months into violent and universal distress, which lasted for three years. This was 
the new Bank of England Act. It contracted the currency of the country by no 
less a sum than eight millions. The paper in discount fell from twenty millions to 
four—exports from forty-five millions to thirty-five—imports from thirty-six 
millions to twenty-nine—and the profits of every trade and the wages of every 
labour. There was almost universal distress, dismay, and bankruptcy. 

Cobbett, when he heard the news in America, prepared to return to England, 
feeling certain, he said, that the cause of reform in parliament could now no 
longer be averted; and all the English reformers, who know as well as the 
Irish that the British governing classes listen respectfully to the claims of jus¬ 
tice only when danger makes the opportunity, commenced a violent agitation 
for the reform afterwards partly carried by the Whigs and Manchester party, 
and embodied in their entirety by the Chartist points. Meetings of immense 
masses of men, marching in disciplined order, were convoked during the sum¬ 
mer of 1819 throughout the manufacturing districts, and as the year advanced 
became more and more formidable in their aspect and violent in their tone. 

At last a bloody collision occurred between the people and the authorities. A 
great meeting was summoned at Tetarloo, near Manchester, on the 9 th of August, 


102 


plunket’s speeches. 


to elect “ a representative and legislatorial attorney for the city of Manchester." 
The local magistrates declared that such an object was illegal, and the meeting 
was adjourned to the 16th, and convened again “ to petition for a reform of 
parliament.” Henry Hunt was announced as tribune of the day, and 60,000 of 
the artisan class gathered to hear him. 

The magistrates still conceived the meeting to be illegal, and resolved to arrest 
Hunt in the midst of it. Accordingly, after the business had begun, the chief 
constable got orders to execute the warrant at once. He attempted to make his 
way to the hustings, but the crowd was so dense as to render passage impossible. 
Then the Manchester yeomanry were ordered up to clear the way. Advancing 
two by two amid the dense and excited crowd, they were hooted, separated, 
surrounded, and in some instances unhorsed. But no blood was shed, until the 
chief magistrate turned to the regular cavalry and gave them orders to rescue the 
yeomen. In a minute they were forward at the charge, and dashed into the 
meeting with drawn swords. Four or five persons were killed, about twenty 
wounded ; several hundreds crushed and otherwise injured. Hunt and two of his 
friends were arrested for high treason—and another collision with the military 
took place on his way to gaol. A sense of indignation and horror spread among 
the people, and the outrage was resented by popular opinion throughout the 
empire. On the other hand, the home secretary, Lord Bid mouth, at once con¬ 
veyed the “ approbation and high commendation” of the Prince Regent and the 
ministry to the magistrates of Manchester for their conduct. 

Three months elapsed before the meeting of parliament. England resounded 
with execrations of the government and the magistrates. The common council 
of London framed a petition condemning their conduct. Meetings were held in 
Liverpool, York, Westminster, and in almost all the great manufacturing towns, 
to stigmatize the proceedings of the executive. At some of the meetings violent 
riots broke out; others were forcibly dissolved. At the York meeting, Lord Fitz- 
william attended, and was instantly dismissed from the lieutenancy of his riding. 
The people organized, agitated, threatened. The government embodied the dis¬ 
banded soldiers of the war, and drafted the famous six coercion acts. 

In the Prince Regent’s speech opening the session, he called the earnest, 
speedy, and careful attention of parliament to the state of the country. “ A spirit 
is now fully manifested,” he said, “ utterly hostile to the constitution of the 
kingdom, and aiming not only at the change of those political institutions which 
have hitherto constituted the pride and security of this country, but at the sub¬ 
version of the rights of property and of all order in society.” On the address 
in reply violent debates arose. 

In the House of Lords, Earl Grey, Lord Erskine, and the Marquis of Lans- 
downe in strong language proposed an amendment condemnatory of the conduct 
of the magistrates; and the Dukes of Kent and Sussex voted in the minority 
with them. In the House of Commons, Tierney led the opposition in a long 
passionate speech denouncing ministers and magistrates, and calling for inquiry 
and vengeance. Castlereagh replied, admitting the “awful responsibility of 
ministers to God and their country,” but vindicating their conduct on the grounds 
that the meeting was one held to intimidate the executive and the legislature, 
and that the magistrates had used all reasonable means to disperse it peaceably 
before resorting to force. On the case of Lord Fitzwilliam he asserted that “it 
was essential to the due administration of public affairs, and to the dignity of tht 
crown, that none of its servants should hold opinions of it derogatory to its ho¬ 
nour and character. Lord Fitzwilliam when he went to the meeting at York, 
virtually tendered the resignation of his office. * * * Neves 


THE PETERLOO MASSACRE. 


1C3 


thank3 to the meeting for being allowed to address them with the radicals * * * 
He had lived long enough in Ireland daring a disastrous period of its history to 
know how far delusions might be carried on by popular agitators ; and he had 
seen those who had been so deluded afterwards become faithful subjects and 
zealous supporters of the laws.” Several minor speakers followed, and then Sir 
James Mackintosh rose, denounced the dismissal of Lord Fitzwilliam as “an 
outrage the most gross on honour and virtue, on rank and fortune, that had ever 
degraded any administration in modern times”—and urged the house to adopt 
the amendment; to inquire, “ if the inquiry should be gone into, it would rub 
out as foul a blot and black a stain as ever disgraced the history of the country.” 

Plunket’s speech is next in the debate, and from his antecedents and con¬ 
nexion astounded the house. Their surprise was possibly increased by Castle- 
reagh’s apposite reference to his experience in Ireland of “agitators,” who, how¬ 
ever, afterwards became “ zealous supporters of the laws”—meaning, of course, 
the anti-Union tribunes. But Plunket never heeded, and spoke like an attorney- 
general with an unflawed indictment and a packed jury. The speech, although 
reported in the third person, is printed from the authorised edition. 

Mr. Plunket commenced by observing that the question before 
the house had not been very fairly treated. Much had been intro¬ 
duced which did not necessarily connect itself with the subject, and 
which had a tendency to divert the attention of the house from the 
deeply important matters which pressed for their consideration. There 
had been some address in making the case of Lord Fitzwilliam so 
principal a topic. As a ground of argument applicable to the pre¬ 
sent questiou, it could not be justly resorted to by any person who 
did not go the length of asserting that the dismissal of that noble¬ 
man would warrant parliament in the refusal to consider, or to make 
provision against, the dangers with which the country was threatened, 
and which were announced in the speech from the throne. No per¬ 
son, on any side of the house, had laid down so extreme a position; 
on the contrary, the amendment of his right honourable friend ad¬ 
mitted the danger and the necessity of meeting it by suitable pro¬ 
visions. He would, therefore, in his view of the subject, relieve 
himself from a discussion which he could not approach without feel¬ 
ings of great embarrassment. His habitual reverence for that dis¬ 
tinguished nobleman was such that he could scarcely hope to bring 
his mind, fairly and impartially, to any investigation which affected 
him. He considered his character as uniting everything noble and 
generous in freedom, with everything that could exalt or dignify the 
aristocracy of the country; and he therefore took leave to dismiss 
this subject as one not connected with the debate, and in doing so, 
he felt much satisfaction in the statement of the noble lord (Castle- 
reagh), that the dismissal of Earl Fitzwilliam was founded, not on 
any personal imputations, but on a difference of opinion with his 


164: 


PLUNKET S SPEECHES. 


majesty’s government on points involving the exercise of his duties 
as lord lieutenant of the West Riding. 

Again, he thought the subject had, in another respect, not been 
very fairly treated by his right honourable friend who immediately 
preceded him. It was stated in the speech from the throne that a 
revolutionary spirit was at work in the country, which threatened its 
safety and its existence; and the truth of this statement was not 
denied, but indeed admitted, by the amendment. Was it then per¬ 
fectly fair to call the attention of the house from the consideration of 
the public danger and its remedies—from the machinations and arts 
of those who were preparing measures for the subversion of the state 
and the overthrow of every constituted authority—to the plans and 
objects of that portion of the peaceful and loyal subjects of this 
country who respected the law and constitution, and were desirous of 
improving them. This latter description of persons were entitled to 
the most attentive and respectful consideration. However he might 
differ from them on the subject of parliamentary reform, he consi¬ 
dered their objects as honest, and their means of effecting them as 
constitutional. Whenever, at any proper time, and in any proper 
form, their claims should be brought before parliament, they should 
be listened to with attention and with respect. Their proposals, if 
reasonable, should be yielded to ; if not so, they should be met with 
fair argument and calm discussion; and the result, in either event, 
would be satisfactory and conciliating. The people of England were 
a reasoning and reasonable people ; but was it fair, either to them 
or to the country, to confound their cause and their objects with 
the persons whom we now were called upon to deal with, whose un¬ 
disguised aim was to pull down the entire fabric of our constitution 
and to effect a revolution by force ? Against this immediate and 
overwhelming danger it was the first duty of parliament to provide. 
And to turn aside from this urgent and paramount duty to the dis¬ 
cussion of subjects of inferior importance and of distinct considera¬ 
tion, would be an abandonment of the interests of the country. 
When he saw a revolutionary project ripe for execution—when he 
saw that sedition and blasphemy were the instruments by which it 
worked, and that open force was to be employed for its accomplish¬ 
ment, he felt it to be trifling with the duties of the house, and with 
the safety of the country, to turn their minds to any other object until 
the terrors that hung over our existing establishments were first dis¬ 
pelled. 

No person, he was happy to see, denied the existence of these 
dangers; but he thought there was some tendency to underrate tueir 




THE PETERLOO MASSACRE. 


165 


extent, and to undervalue their consequence. It was said that the 
public mind in general was sound: he trusted and firmly believed it 
was so. He was convinced that the strength and spirit of the loyal 
subjects were sufficient to put down the enemies of law and of order; 
he, therefore, was apprehensive, not of revolution, but of the attempt 
at revolution, which he believed in his conscience would be made, if 
not prevented by the vigilancy and energy of parliament; aud what 
he contemplated with the deepest alarm was the miseries which such 
an attempt, in its progress to certain and necessary failure, must 
produce. If this mischief should once burst forth, he anticipated a 
series of horrors wh’ich must shake the safety and happiness of the 
country to its foundations. The very circumstances which must 
ensure the ultimate failure of the enterprise aggravated its dangers. 
Revolution, always calamitous, yet, when pursued for some definite 
purpose, conducted by abilities, tempered by the admixture of rank 
and of property, may be effected, as it had been before in this coun¬ 
try, without any incurable shock being given to the safety of persons 
of property. But here was a revolution to be achieved by letting 
loose the physical force of the community against its constituted 
authorities—a revolution for the sake of revolution, to take away the 
property of the rich, and to distribute it among the rabble, a rabble 
previously debauched by the unremitting dissemination of blasphe¬ 
mous libels, and freed from the restraints of moral or religious feel¬ 
ing. On this subject he felt sufficient confidence to express his 
opinion, without waiting for any of those documents which the noble 
lord proposed to lay before the house. 

These were facts of public notoriety, known and seen by every 
man who did not choose to shut his eyes. Had not meetings been 
proposed for the purpose of assuming the functions which belonged 
only to the sovereign power of the state—meetings which, if they 
actually had been held, would have been acts of high treason. When 
it was found that matters were not sufficiently ripe for this undis¬ 
guised act of public rebellion, had not the same masses of the popu¬ 
lace been again convened, under the directions of the same leaders, 
under the pretext of seeking universal suffrage and annual parliaments 
-—their very pretexts such as the constitution could not survive, if 
they were effectuated; but their real object being to overawe the 
constituted authorities by the display of their numerical strength, and 
to prepare for direct, immediate, forcible revolution. Had we not 
seen the same itinerant mountebank,* who set their powers in motion 
publicly assisting at the orgies of the blasphemous wretchf lately con- 
* Hunt. t Carlile the publisher. 






166 


plunket’s speeches. 


victed; and could we doubt that treason was the object, and that bias* 
pheiny and sedition were the means ? When he saw these fiends > 
human shape endeavouring to rob their unhappy victims of all their con¬ 
solations here, and of all their hopes hereafter; when he saw them with 
their levers placed under the great pillars of social order^and heaving 
the constitution from its foundation, he was rejoiced to see parliament 
assembled. Their first duty was to convince these enemies of God 
and man, that within the walls of parliament they could find no 
countenance; and through the organ of parliament to let them know, 
that nothing awaited them but indignant resistance from the great 
body of the people. 

They were bound to assure the throne of their loyal and cheerful 
co-operation for these purposes; and on this ground alone the amend¬ 
ment was objectionable, even if the measure suggested by it were in 
itself desirable, inasmuch as by tacking it to the address, and not 
proposing it as a separate resolution, it declared the measure of in¬ 
quiry so essential as to preclude all exertions for the safety of the 
state until that inquiry should be disposed of. But, waiving this ob¬ 
jection, he should proceed to consider it on its own merits. It was 
said then that the dispersion of the meeting at Manchester on the 
16th of August called for parliamentary inquiry; and here he begged 
leave to remind the house that parliamentary inquiry, though cer¬ 
tainly a proceeding recognised by our constitution, was still not the 
ordinary mode for investigating either the conduct of magistrates in 
the execution of the laws, or the conduct of those who were the ob¬ 
jects of the execution of those laws. A case, therefore, for inquiry 
was to be made out by those who called for it. What, then, was 
the inquiry proposed? Was it into the conduct of government for 
thanking the magistrates ? Such a proceeding, he owned, appeared 
to him most premature and uncalled for. If the magistrates had 
issued orders for dispersing the king’s subjects peaceably and legally 
assembled—if, in consequence of such orders, the blood of innocent 
and unoffending persons had been shed, the conduct of ministers in 
advising his royal highness the Prince llegent to thank them for 
such acts would call for inquiry and for censure. If, on the contrary, 
bodies to the amount of twenty thousand or seventy thousand, he 
cared not which—but to an amount beyond the means of the civil 
power to deal with—had marched in regular columns and in military 
array, with seditious banners, into the heart of one of the most popu¬ 
lous and most inflammable towns in the empire; if these men had 
been previously drilled to military exercises; if they had been shortly 
before convened for a treasouable purpose; if they resisted the au- 





THE FETEULOO HASS AC RE. 


167 


thority of the peace officers executing the warrant of the magistrates; 
if, in short, the case stated by the noble lord and by the honourable 
member for Dover were correct, then, he had no hesitation in saying 
that his majesty’s ministers were not only justified in returning thanks 
to the magistrates, but that it was their bounden duty to do so ; and 
that those gentlemen, acting in the discharge of a most important 
duty, in a crisis of public peril, and undertaking an awful responsi¬ 
bility for the public service, were entitled to have the sense of the 
executive government on their conduct. When it was said that this 
was prejudging the question, it seemed to be taken as granted that 
the executive power of the country is not in any degree lodged in the 
government. Would it not have been their duty to have given 
previous advice and instruction to the magistrates on such a subject 
and with a view to such an emergency ? When they direct the 
public prosecutor to proceed against any individual, can that be con¬ 
sidered as a prejudging of the question ? To this extent it is the 
exercise of their proper functions, which they cannot neglect without 
an abandonment of duty; and if they felt, under all circumstances, 
that the conduct of those most meritorious public servants deserved 
their praise, it would have been unjust and mean to have withheld 
their expressions of it. How, then, could the propriety of the letter 
of thanks be judged until the facts were ascertained ? True, it was 
said; and therefore inquire. Certainly ; but how ? Clearly by the 
regular course of law, and by the regular tribunals of the country, 
unless some case were previously established, showing that these 
tribunals were inadequate or unsuited for the purpose. Bills were 
found against several of the persons alleged to be actors in this se¬ 
ditious meeting: on these trials the legality of the meeting would be 
necessarily the subject of investigation. And why was it that these 
trials had not taken place, and the public mind, through the regular 
constitutional channel of a trial by jury, been informed of the real 
nature of these transactions ? Why; because the persons so accused 
had availed themselves of the delay which the law unfortunately 
allows, and had postponed their trials until the spring assizes. 

But, it is said that although the legality of the meeting might be 
decided on in those cases, still the conduct of the magistrates in dis¬ 
persing it might be illegal; and this would not necessarily, in them, 
come under discussion. Why, then, were not proceedings taken on 
the part of the persons alleged to be aggrieved or injured by the acts 
of the magistrates ? The honourable and learned member made the 
absence of such proceedings a ground for parliamentary inquiry; but 
was not the fair inference from the absence of such proceedings this, 





168 


plunket’s speeches. 


that no reasonable foundation for them existed ? But the grand 
jury had thrown out the bills preferred on behalf of these persons. 
Was this a ground for parliamentary inquiry ? Was it to be presumed 
that the grand jury of the county of Lancaster had violated their 
oaths ? An artifice had been resorted to, for the purpose of rendering 
the administration of justice suspected in the public mind, by pub¬ 
lishing the informations which had been sent up to the grand jury; 
but every gentleman must be aware of the difference between an in¬ 
formation' in which the party states the facts according to his own 
views, and a vivd voce examination before the grand jury, in which 
the entire truth is extracted from the witness. But, supposing the 
grand jury had erred in ignoring the bills, fresh indictments might be 
sent up to any succeeding grand jury. Was the entire county of 
Lancashire to be pronounced incapable or unwilling to exercise such 
functions ? But magistrates refused to receive informations. Was not 
their conduct examinable in the Court of King’s Bench; and might not 
all the facts connected with such a transaction be fully examined on 
affidavits ? And if any doubt existed for a jury, on an information 
under the sanction of the court, was the Court of King’s Bench also to 
be included within the ban of this proscription of all the constituted au¬ 
thorities ? But the honourable and learned member said that the Court 
of King’s Bench would not interfere unless the magistrate acted wil¬ 
fully, and that he might commit an error which would not subject him 
to punishment. Was this, then, a ground for parliamentary interfer¬ 
ence, to stop the course of law, and subject the public functionary to 
an extraordinary visitation of public vengeance? Were the different 
points of the argument of the honourable and learned member alto¬ 
gether reconcileable ? When his object was to make out a case so 
important as to call for parliamentary inquiry, he stated the conduct 
of the magistrates as a daring violation of the subjects’ privileges, a 
triumph of authority over law, a foul stain upon our laws, forming a 
black era in the annals of our country ; but when it became an ob¬ 
ject to show that there might be a case in which the courts of law 
would be incompetent to investigate the truth, then this foul deed, 
this portentous violation of the laws and of the constitution dwindled 
into an error in judgment too slight and too pardonable to warrant 
the interference of the Court of King’s Bench. 

Was such an error, if it did exist, he would ask, a case for par¬ 
liamentary inquiry? Was this the way in which the conduct of 
magistrates was to be examined by parliament ? He owned he was 
not one of those who were disposed to examine too critically the con¬ 
duct of magistrates acting in perilous times, under heavy responsi- 



TEE P2TERL00 MASSACRE. 


1G9 


bility ; and sure he was, that if the benignant principle of the law 
shielded their errors, it was not the province of parliament to deprive 
them of that protection. Further, he would ask, if any individual 
was aggrieved, where was the bar to his remedy by civil action, in 
which the whole merits of the case would be discussed in a court of 
law, and decided on by a jury of his country ? What pretence was 
there for saying that justice had been denied, or even delayed? Unless 
the house was prepared to bring to its bar the grand jury of Lanca¬ 
shire ; unless they were prepared to say that the whole body of public 
functionaries, petty juries, grand juries, magistrates, and judges, were 
linked in one common conspiracy against the peaceable petitioners 
who assembled at Manchester on the 16th of August, they had not 
ground or principle on which they could order this inquiry. He de¬ 
precated such a proceeding as calculated to give efficacy to the plans 
of the revolutionary party for the degradation of the public func¬ 
tionaries, and to stamp with the authoritative seal of parliament what 
hitherto had rested on vulgar calumny and on popular clamour. He be¬ 
lieved that such an inquiry, instead of being calculated, as was alleged, 
to allay dissatisfaction, and to conciliate the public mind, could have 
no other effect than to raise the hopes and spirits of revolutionists, 
and to strike damp and panic into the heart of every loyal subject. 
Besides this, the course was wild and impracticable. How was this 
inquiry to be conducted ? At the bar of the house or in a committee ? 
Was this inquiry to supersede the proceedings already instituted in 
the king’s courts? Or were the two classes of proceedings to be carried 
on simultaneously ? If the former was to be the course, the laws 
were to be robbed of their authority, and the subject of his redress, 
by a proceeding utterly unsuited to the purposes either of punish¬ 
ment or of compensation. If the latter, we were to have the ano¬ 
malous and unprecedented spectacle of persons being tried on charges 
affecting their persons and properties, perhaps their lives, in pro¬ 
ceedings before juries, and with witnesses on oath, in the regular 
courts of law; while the very same facts were undergoing a discus¬ 
sion without oath, before the extraordinary tribunal of parliament. 
Was it possible that either public or individual justice could be ob¬ 
tained by such a course, or that any result could be derived from it 
calculated to maintain the authority of the laws or the dignity of 
parliament ? Such a proceeding, he must say, appeared to him wild, 
unprecedented, and impracticable. 

His honourable and learned friend had adverted to three cases as 
precedents to warrant such a course asthatnow recommended: thetirst 
was a case in the year 1714, in which the House of Lords, for the 








170 


plunket’s speeches. 


purpose of procuring the removal of magistrates who were supposed 
to entertain Jacobitical principles, had addressed the throne for a list 
of the magistrates, and entered into a strict inquiry ; in consequence 
Df which, several of those magistrates were dismissed. Was there 
any trial then pending in the court of law ? Was there any 
specific fact that could be inquired into in a court of law ? Or 
was it anything more than a proceeding to enable parliament to ad¬ 
vise the crown with respect to the wholesome exercise of its prero¬ 
gative ? The second was the case of the murder of Porteous by the 
mob of Edinburgh (which had derived much celebrity from a late 
popular work). Was that a proceeding affecting any trial depending, or 
with a view to any individual punishment ? It was, as fairly stated by 
the honourable and learned member, an inquiry in order to ground a 
bill of pains and penalties against the town of Edinburgh, and which 
was accordingly passed. The third instance alluded to was, the inquiry 
instituted before the secret committee in 1794 : that was an inquiry for 
the purpose of grounding measures for the public safety ; and was, 
with reference to the general state of the country, not in the conduct 
of local magistrates, and on a particular occasion. Again, the danger 
of its incidentally affecting the rights of individuals, who were liable 
to be tried in the courts of law, was so strongly felt, that the in¬ 
quiry was a secret one. When published, the names of individuals 
were suppressed; and even under all these circumstances, the possi¬ 
bility of an impression unfavourable to these individuals having been 
made by the report was so strongly felt, that Mr. Erskine relied on 
it, and successfully, and in some instances, as he (Mr. P.) believed, 
acquittals were obtained on that ground. When his honourable and 
learned friend, with his extensive knowledge and research, could pro¬ 
duce no other instances than these, he felt himself justified in repeat¬ 
ing the assertion, that the measure was unprecedented. But there 
was a case not alluded to by his honourable and learned friend, as 
he recollected, about the year 1715, in which a parliamentary inquiry 
having been directed into the nature of a certain meeting at Oxford, 
which was alleged to be riotous, a number of affidavits were pro¬ 
duced on one side, and after an unavailing demand of examination 
on the other, the inquiry was found so impracticable that it was 
dropped, and no further proceeding founded on it.* 

* The reference appears to have been made from memory, and though sub¬ 
stantially true, was certainly inaccurate in expression. The facts were these: 

A tumult having arisen at Oxford on the prince’s birth-day, and the loyalty of 
the mayor and of the heads of the university being called in question, the lords 
of the council examined into the case on allidavits, not with reference to the 





THE PETERLOO MASSACRE. 


171 


The case for inquiry, he therefore contended, was unsupported by 
precedent, and was not bottomed on any ascertained fact, or even on 
any statement made by any member in his place of any case which, 
if true, would warrant its adoption; indeed, he had not heard any 
member assert the legality of the Manchester meeting. He was con¬ 
fident that no man acquainted with the laws and constitution of the 
country would venture to do so. 

The house, he trusted, would excuse him, if he trespassed a little 
further on their patience, by stating his opinion as to those public 
meetings. The right of the people of this country to meet for the 
purpose of expressing their opinions on any subject connected with 
their own individual interests, or with the public welfare, was beyond 
all question; it was a sacred privilege belonging to the most humble 
as fully as to the highest subject in the community : they had a 
right to the full expression and to the free communication of such 
sentiments; to interchange them with their fellow-subjects, to ani- 

riot, but with respect to their conduct as to rejoicing on the prince’s birth-day— 
a matter which could not be the subject of any legal inquiry. The council 
came to the following resolution:—Resolved, that the heads of the university 
and mayor of the city neglected to make any public rejoicing on the prince’s 
birth-day; but some of the collegiates, with the officers, being met to celebrate 
the day, the house where they were was assaulted, and the windows were broken 
by the rabble, which was the beginning and occasion of the riots that ensued as 
well from the soldiers as the scholars and the townsmen, and the conduct of the 
mayor seems well j ustified by the affidavits on his part. 

On the 25th of March, 1717, the Lords addressed the crown, that the proper 
officer should lay before the house the complaints and depositions relative to the 
riots and disorders complained of at the city of Oxford, and the proceedings 
which had been had thereon. In consequence of this address, the documents, 
consisting among others of fifty-six affidavits by the officers and soldiers, and 
fifty-five affidavits on the part of the mayor and city, were laid before the 
House of Lords, and referred to a committee of the whole house. On the 3rd 
April, 1717, the committee repealed two resolutions, viz., an approbation of the 
resolutions of the lords of the council already stated; and secondly, that the 
publication of depositions, while the matter was depending in council, was dis¬ 
respectful to the prince and tending to sedition. A petition against this resolu¬ 
tion was offered on behalf of the vice-chancellor, the mayor, and magistrates, 
who desired to be heard in reply. Their application was refused, and the reso¬ 
lutions already stated were adopted by the house, and no further proceedings 
were taken; and even from this mere adoption of the resolution in council 
twenty-eight peers dissented, assigning this among other reasons—namely, that 
the matters of fact were not sufficiently inquired into, from want of opportunity 
of replying to the affidavits; and because of such proceedings the magistrates 
may be discouraged from doing their duty on such occasions. These facts 
appear on the journals of the Lords, and it is conceived they substantially war¬ 
rant the statement of this case as one tending to show the futility of such in¬ 
quiries, although they do not confirm the exact words of the statement. 






172 


plunket’s speeches. 


mate and catch fire each from the other. He trusted that to snch 
rights he should never be found an enemy; but he must say that these 
rights, like all others, to be exercised in civil society must be subject 
to such modification and restriction as to render them compatible 
with other rights equally acknowledged and equally sacred. Every 
subject of this realm had an undoubted right to the protection of the 
laws—to the security of his person and his property—and still more, 
to the full assurance of such safety. And he had no hesitation in 
asserting that any assembly of the people, held under such circum¬ 
stances as to excite in the minds of the king’s peaceable and loyal 
subjects reasonable grounds of alarm, in this respect were illegal 
assemblies, and liable to be dispersed as such. He thought it impor¬ 
tant that it should be understood that these rights were restricted 
not merely to this extent—namely, that they must not assemble for 
an illegal purpose ; that they must not assemble with force and arms; 
and they must not use seditious language; that they must not revile 
the laws or public functionaries; but beyond all this, that they must 
not assemble under such circumstances, whether of numbers or other¬ 
wise, as to excite well-grounded terror in the minds of their fellow-sub¬ 
jects, or to disturb their tranquil and assured enjoyment of the protection 
of the laws, free from all reasonable apprehension of force or violence. 
A vulgar notion may have prevailed, that if the avowed and imme¬ 
diate purpose of such meetings were not illegal, or if they had not 
arms in their hands, or if no force was actually used or immediately 
threatened, the assembly was legal: no opinion could be more un¬ 
founded, and he did not fear contradiction from any constitutional 
lawyer when he asserted that any assembly of the people, whether 
armed or unarmed; whether using or threatening to use force, or 
not doing so ; and whether the avowed object was illegal or legal: 
if held in such numbers, or with such language, or emblems, or de¬ 
portment as to create well-grounded terror in the king’s liege sub¬ 
jects for their lives, their persons, or their property, was an illegal 
assembly, and might be dispersed as such. 

Such had been the law as laid down by the ablest of our lawyers 
and of our judges from the earliest period of our jurisprudence, and 
in the best times of our history and constitution, before the revolu¬ 
tion and since the revolution, independent of the Riot Act or of any 
statuteable enactment, by the principles of our common law, which 
was always founded on the principles of common sense. The appli¬ 
cation of this principle to each particular case must always be a mat¬ 
ter of discretion, but in cases like the present it could not admit of 
doubt or difficulty. _ When meetings became too strong for the civil 


THE PETERLOO MASSACRE 


173 


power to deal with them, the laws must prohibit them; if not recourse 
must be had to military force. When the citizen becomes too strong 
tor the law, the magistrate of necessity becomes a soldier; and those, 
who justified these unrestricted meetings were the worst enemies to 
the liberties of their country, and laid the foundation of military des¬ 
potism. If bodies of the people, not convened by any public func¬ 
tionary, but called together by mountebanks whose only title was 
their impudence and folly, were entitled to assemble, not in thou¬ 
sands but in tens of thousands; to march with banners displayed in 
military array, into the hearts of populous cities; and if the laws 
were not competent to assure the people of this country against the 
panic and dismay excited by such proceedings, there was an en 1 to 
the constitution. He implored the house to protect the country from 
the effect of these desolating plans which were now in operation. 
Kven though they should not break out in actual rebellion, their mis¬ 
chiefs were beyond calculation. The principles of respect for the 
laws and orders of the state, the reverence that was due to the sacred 
obligations of religion, these were not the results of momentary feel¬ 
ings which might be thrown aside and resumed at pleasure; they 
were habits which if once removed could not easily be restored. If 
those sacred sources from which were the issues of public happiness 
and virtue, were once tainted, how was their purity to be restored ? 
He had reason to believe that the blasphemies which had excited 
the horror of all good men, had been fashioned by these miscreants 
into primers for the education of children, that these helpless beings 
in receiving the first elements of knowledge might be inoculated with 
this pestilence. He again implored the house to act with decision 
and energy while yet it was in their power. If the great foundations 
of public safety were once shaken, the united exertion of all the ho¬ 
nest men of every party might come too late. On these grounds he 
deprecated the amendment, as calculated to give encouragement to 
the worst enemies of the state; and cordially concurred in the original 
address. 

The debate was adjourned, and on the second day strong references were made 
by Hume, Burdett, and several others of the opposition speakers, to the course 
taken by Plunket, who, on the other hand, was warmly complimented by Can¬ 
ning—“The right honourable and learned gentleman, himself a host, had 
pledged his authority and reputation as a lawyer (pledges of which the house 
and the United Kingdom know, and posterity will acknowledge, the value) 
that the meeting was an illegal meeting,” &c. Brougham was of quite another 
opinion. The government, however, carried their address by a large majority. 


II 





174 


flunket’s speeches. 


THE SEDITIOUS MEETINGS BILL. 

December 13, 1819. 

Instantly after ministers had felt their way with the honse by the address 
they introduced the six acts—the training, seizure of arms, misdemeanour, se¬ 
ditious meetings, blasphemous libels, and newspaper stamp acts—a series of 
measures devised to environ the Radicals with a complete cordon of legis¬ 
lation. The Seditious Meetings Prevention Act was a peculiarly severe mea¬ 
sure. It made the least resistance to any magistrate who called upon any meet¬ 
ing to disperse, a felony, and indemnified justices for killing and maiming in 
dispersing any meeting that so refused. 

Mr. Hutchinson, “ a blood relation of my Lord Donoughmore,” delivered a 
rattling Irish speech on the third reading, attacking the government for wan¬ 
tonly and unnecessarily including Ireland in the bill. Turning to the Irishmen 
who supported it, “ Perhaps,” said he, “ the most novel and singular circum¬ 
stance attending these debates was the conspicuous lead the Irish gentlemen had 
taken on the occasion. The member for the university of Dublin (Mr. Plunket), 
one of the first legal characters in that country, had come over to declare the law, 
to strengthen and to shield the minister. The president of the Board of Control 
(Mr. Canning), also an Irishman, had exhausted all the powers of his extraordi¬ 
nary eloquence, in a three hours’ speech, in order to guide or rather beguile the house 
into an adoption of these measures. The noble lord (Castlereagh), the author of 
this notable system, himself an Irishman, seventy other Irish members, crowd¬ 
ing the ranks of ministers, and making their victory decisive—a noble duke, 
the first, the great captain of the age, one of Erin’s most favoured sons, covered 
with honours and with glory, forming one of the cabinet where these measures 
were devised, and prepared, no doubt, to lead the armies of the empire, if neces¬ 
sary, even against the people of Great Britain, should they in their despair and 
madness unhappily be goaded on to violence and to mischief. One felt disposed 
to ask whether this be revenge?—revenge for the injuries inflicted by Great 
Britain on that country for so many centuries?—whether it was the hand of 
Providence interferfering to punish, through Irish agency, the sufferings of mil¬ 
lions, though thus tardily ? He asked whether those gentlemen he had men¬ 
tioned now wished to give chains to Great Britain, in return for the misery and 
desolation inflicted on their own country by the barbarous policy of Briti-h cabi¬ 
nets.” Another passage in his speech was an urgent personal appeal to Plunket 
against extending the bills to Ireland. 


Mr. Plunket trusted the honse would indulge him for a short 
time, while he expressed his sentiments on the measure then before 
them. He did not intend to have occupied their attention at this 
stage of the debate, nor should he have offered himself, but for the 
very pointed manner in which he had been alluded to by his 
honourable and learned friend who had spoken last but one. He 
held it to be rather unusual to call particularly upon any member for 
his opinion upon what was passing before the house, and perhaps he 
might, with a full sense of duty, decline to comply with the demand; 


SEDITIOUS MEETINGS BILL. 


175 


but he confessed he had so much of the Irishman in him as not to 
refuse the challenge. He thanked his honourable and learned friend 
for the compliments which he had paid him in the course of his 
speech; but he conceived the allusion made to his character, as 
affected by the vote which he had given or might give on this sub¬ 
ject, was wholly uncalled for. He must say that he did not think 
h:s character was likely to sustain auy injury or diminution from 
the course of conduct which he had felt it his duty in that house to 
follow. He thought that his character could never be implicated 
by the conscientious expression of a conscientious opinion. His 
honourable and learned friend, in what he had expressed, was not 
inconsistent with his politics ; and he (Mr. Plunket) maintained that 
he, in what he had said, was not inconsistent with those politics 
which he had always supported. In the course of his parliamentary 
experience, he had frequently been compelled to differ from his 
honourable and learned friend, and he had never seen occasion since 
to regret that difference. He had heard a great deal of the claim 
set up to exclusive loyalty by the gentlemen on the other side ; but 
he considered the claim to exclusive patriotism, which was set up 
by some gentlemen, equally as arrogant and unfounded. His honour¬ 
able and learned friend had talked a great deal of liberty, and of the 
inroads which had been made upon it. He should be glad to learn 
from him what that liberty was, and what were those attacks which 
were so much to be feared. That liberty would not, he was cer¬ 
tain, be defined to mean the unlimited power of each individual to 
do whatever he pleased. He should rather define it to be “ Po- 
testasfaciendi quicquidper leges licet” It was not the unbridled 
license of disturbing the community at the caprice of all who sought 
only for confusion. The outcry of the present day was not in sup¬ 
port of any enjoyment—it was not to uphold a legal and recognised 
right, but the uproar was shouted to secure the power of disturbance, 
to perpetuate an abuse with whose existence constitutional freedom 
was incompatible. Could such a misapplication of right be called 
liberty ? Was that liberty which was preached up as such in so 
many parts of the country ? No, it was a screaming harpy, an ob¬ 
scene bird of prey, that polluted every social and every natural en¬ 
joyment, and sought only to poison all those who allowed themselves 
to be brought within its influence. He had heard many assertions 
on the subject on that side of the house, and though he was certain 
that anything which fell from his honourable and learned friend was 
not said with any evil intention, yet it should be recollected that in 
the present state of the country the slightest assertion might be sufii- 


176 


plunket’s speeches. 


dent to unsheath the sword of civil discord, which unhappily was 
already half drawn from its scabbard. Many gentlemen talked ol 
the introduction of military power and the substitution of a govern¬ 
ment of force for a government of law. He could not participate in 
such apprehensions—he read the answer to such fears in the appli¬ 
cation to parliament for the wholesome laws in the passing of which 
the house was then engaged. 

He had made those few observations from having been so point¬ 
edly called upon by his honourable and learned friend, but he 
trusted the house would excuse him if he went a little farther iuto 
the subject than he originally intended ; for he was anxious to state 
what his reasons were lor giving his support to the present mea¬ 
sures. That support was not founded on any suggestions of tempo¬ 
rary policy—nor on the information which was disclosed in the papers 
before the house, but with the conviction that the proposed measures 
did not infringe on the constitution; while they were essential to its 
conservation. The state of society in this coun’ry, every man who 
reflected on the subject must admit, had within the last twenty or 
thirty years undergone a greater change than from the period of the 
conquest uutil the time of Avhich he spoke. Wiihiu that interval 
the public attention had been called to the consideration of every 
measure connected with the administration of the government, in a 
degree hitherto unprecedented. There had been an intensity of light 
shed upon all subjects, civil, political, and religious; so that mea¬ 
sures were now scanned with minuteness, which were scarcely looked 
iuto, or at most, but generally known before. Did he complain of 
that change, or of the means by which it had been produced ? No; 
he rejoiced at it. The freedom of the public press, directing its 
efforts under the institutions of the constitution, was the most effec¬ 
tual security of public freedom. He was persuaded that where every 
action of every man connected with public affairs was laid before the 
public in the fullest manner, and most strictly canvassed and exa¬ 
mined ; where the press exercised this kind of guardianship we had 
the best guarantee of all our rights. Then why did he allude to the 
public press ? Because there was under the same title another de¬ 
scription, a blasphemous, seditious, mischievous press, of which thf 
members of that house knew but little, but which had been unremit¬ 
tingly at work in destroying every honest and good feeling in the 
heart of man, and in loosening all those moral and social ties, with¬ 
out which civilization could not exist. It was not against the re¬ 
spectable press but against this under-current, which, setting with 
groat force, was drifting the great mass of the humbler classes of 


SEDITIOUS MEETINGS BILL. 


177 


the community into sedition, atheism, and revolution, that the house 
sougnt to guard. It was for the consummation of such atrocious 
objects that this battery was brought to play upon their passions 
and their ignorance. Did he mean to say that the lower class of 
the people had no right to be informed on public transactions ? 
Did he mean to say that the lower orders of the people had not 
a right to inquire into and discuss subjects of a political nature? 
No such thing. Did he mean to say that they ought not to have 
the power of expressing their sense of any grievance under which 
they might think themselves to suffer ? Far from it; but when 
he was willing to allow to them the enjoyment of every constitu¬ 
tional privilege, which they were entitled to possess, he never could 
consider that nice discussions on the very frame of the constitution 
—on the most essential changes in the institutions and fundamen¬ 
tal laws of the country, were calculated for minds of such intel¬ 
ligence and cultivation. They ought rather to be protected from the 
mischiefs which such a misapplication of their minds must entail. 
Every capacity was capable of understanding the nature and the ex¬ 
tent of the restrictions which government, from the purport of its 
institution, necessarily imposed on the natural freedom of man ; but 
to the task of contemplating the more than usurious repayment which 
in long and various succession was received for that surrender, the 
generality of persons were not quite so adequate. The penalties of 
government stood at the threshold, but its benefits were to be 
traced through a long interval of ages—in the distribution of equal 
laws—in the control of public wisdom, producing, even through 
apparent contradiction, the grand harmony of the social system—• 
these he conceived were subjects which could not be well discussed 
by men whose time was chiefly devoted to daily labour. It had been 
wisely said that “ a little learning was a daugerous thing.” It was 
true in literature, in religion, in politics. In literature, superficial 
reading too frequently formed the babbling critic. In religion the 
poor man, who, unsettled as to his faith, became curious upon his 
evidences, and who, if he possessed the capacity and had time and 
means to extend his inquiries, would in the end reach the moral 
demonstration which religion unfulded—shaken, but not instructed, 
became a shallow infidel. It was equally so in politics; men who 
indulged in the perusal of every species of invective against the in¬ 
stitutions of their country, who read on their shopboard of all tha 
evils, and did not compreheud the blessings of the system of govern¬ 
ment under which they lived, these men the nature of whose em¬ 
ployment and whose education disallowed them to be statesmen. 


178 


plunket’s speeches. 


might however learn enough to become turbulent and discontented 
subjects. Was not this the case in France, where persons were 
called from their daily labour to give opinions upon the most difficult 
joints of legislation ? 

But he heard from his honourable aud learned friend, and frjm 
other honourable members, a great deal about overturning the con¬ 
stitution of the country, and the wish that the practices of the good 
o'd times should be restored. He should be glad if the persons wh > 
made these observations would prove their present applicability. I f 
it were said that the measures now introduced were against the prac¬ 
tice of the good old times, he should only state, that before he could 
a^ree to the proposition he must unlearn all that he had known of 
those good old times, and all that he had read in history respecting 
them. He should be glad to know when had such meetings as it 
was now attempted to control been considered as the ordinary exer¬ 
cise of the constitution ? Why, until the present reign had far ad¬ 
vanced there were no such meetings known, and the reason why 
such laws as the present were not before thought of was, that no 
grounds ever before existed for their necessity. Where a spirit of 
oisaffection existed, some restrictive measure should be passed to 
cneck its operation. The house were called upon to provide against 
an evil not of ancient, but of recent origin, and, in the wise spirit of 
tne constitution, it proceeded to apply new remedies* to a new mi>- 
ciiief. Let any man who read the bill c'ontradict him. Did it in 
its enactments interfere with any right of the subject according to 
the spirit of the constitution ? It was, and he said it with sincerity, 
a remedial measure. He appealed to the common sense of every 
man who heard him, whether the expression of the public voice was 
possible to be obtained at these screaming, howling, hallooing meet¬ 
ings which the measure went to suppress ? Could any discussion, 
any deliberation, any fair, impartial decision result from such assem¬ 
blages? Let him ask whether, if ever there came a question of 
deep importance, on which it was of the greatest moment to procure 
the authoritative expression of the public opinion, that opinion would 
not be better ascertained, and its influence more powerfully felt at a 
hundred meetings, held in apartments, where every man would be 
allowed to deliver his sentiments and to hear distinctly those of 
others, than at a meeting of 10,U00 persons assembled together in 
the open streets, and where what was said by one could not be board 
by hundreds? Why, the spirit of the constitution was more likrly 
to be preserved in those meetings than in the large and tumultuous 
uiics. He would admit that it >vas of importance that the puohe 


SEDITIOUS MEETiNGS BILL. 179 

voice should be frequently expressed; but then he would not sanc¬ 
tion meetings where, under the mask of expressing that opinion, the 
use of physical force was recommended in bringing about alterations 
not only of the law, but the constitution. He would agree with 
what had fallen from an honourable baronet, that perhaps the opi¬ 
nions of lawyers might not be the best on these subjects; but he 
would ask whether the first step from barbarism was not this—to 
prevent the elements of society from being let loose against those 
laws which were enacted for the benefit of all; and thus throwing 
mankind back into a state of nature, in which the institutions of 
government possessed neither respect nor power. The first prin¬ 
ciple of society was, that care should be taken to prevent the exer¬ 
cise of physical force from bearing down those bounds which that 
society had placed to human action in particular cases. He would 
admit that there were states of society where those bounds were 
broken, but then they were states of revolution, and never existed 
without the destruction, for the time, of all order and harmony in 
the country where they rose. In conclusion, he begged to state his 
<'pinion that the same reason which existed for the extension of the 
bill to all parts of England, also existed for its extension to Ireland. 
His honourable and learned friend had, on this occasion, mixed up 
t ne question of the Roman Catholic claims with this bill. In his 
opinion, there was no connexion between them. No doubt his 
honourable and learned friend was a warm and sincere advocate for 
ttie question in which the Roman Catholics were concerned; but he 
(Mr. Plunket) should say, that any man who could mix up their 
question with such measures as the present, was not, in effect, act¬ 
ing the part of a friend to them. His honourable and learned friend 
must admit that most, if not all the meetings which were held on 
the subject of the Roman Catholic question were held within doors, 
and therefore the present bill could not affect their assembling to 
petition; and he knew his Catholic countrymen so well as to feel 
that even if, under the present circumstances, they were to suffer 
some privations, they would freely acquiesce in them, in the hope 
that the time was not far distant when they might be enabled to 
participate in the benefits of that constitution which they were ever 
ready to support and defend. 


180 


PLUNKET S SPEECHES. 


REPLY TO BROUGHAM. 

• : j : • ;•; .;, i. 

December 22, 1819. 

In debate on the third reading of the Newspaper Stamp Duties Bill, Brougham 
took the opportunity of attacking Plunket merely for the two preceding 
speeches. 

Mr. Plunket said, that every person who had heard the honour¬ 
able and learned gentleman who had just sat down, must be sensible 
that he owed it to himself and to the house, not to suffer the allusion 
which had been made to what had fallen from him on a former oc¬ 
casion to go unanswered. It was now nearly a month since he had 
taken the liberty of offering his humble sentiments on the situation of 
the country. At that distance of time he had made use of expressions,, 
which, he ventured to say, had been that night most completely, al¬ 
though he was sure not intentionally, misquoted. He would take the 
liberty of stating what he believed he had said, and thus the mistake 
which had arisen would be set right. He was first charged with 
having said, “ that the conduct of magistrates ought not to be too 
critically inquired into.” Now he begged permission to state, that 
at the time he made use of this expression, there was no appearance 
of an indemnity being asked for on the part of the magistrates, nor, 
as he was apprised, of any intention existing of screening them from 
the operation of the law as it affected their conduct. He conceived 
that their conduct was open to inquiry in the Court of King’s Bench, 
and he did say that it was inconsistent with the dignity of the house 
to stop short in the task which their public duty imposed upon them, 
for the purpose of critically inquiring into their conduct, and for par¬ 
liament to exercise a degree of criticism which could not have been 
exercised in a court of justice. This was what he meant to say, 
and what, he believed, he had said. The next charge brought 
against him was, that he had looked for a definition of liberty among 
the records of the Roman empire, and in the Justinian code. He 
had defiued personal liberty to be potestas faciendi quicquid lege* 
licet; but he had at the same time said that there was as well as a 
personal a political liberty. It would have been candid in the 
honourable aud learned gentleman to have stated that he made that 
distinction. His honourable and learned friend had brought another 
charge against him, which was that he had asserted, that the “ in¬ 
tensity of light” which was thrown on the people unfitted them for 
the enjoyment of liberty. 


REPLY TO BROUGHAM. 


181 


Mr. Brougham—I did not say that yon directly said so, but each an infer¬ 
ence was deducible from your expressions. 

Mr. Plunket resumed. He would now state what he did say on 
that occasion. He had said that an intensity of light (which he did 
not regret but rejoiced at) was thrown upon every subject for the last 
few years, that public curiosity, with respect to the affairs of govern¬ 
ment, was excited to such a pitch that the faculties of the great por¬ 
tion of the people were not sufficiently exercised to consider well and 
thoroughly—that therefore it was likely to lead them into error, and 
that it was the duty of parliament to see that good and wholesome 
food was administered to the minds of the people. His honourable 
and learned friend had said that he had charged some of the schools 
in England with teaching blasphemy and sedition. He admitted 
that he had said he believed blasphemous libels, which had been 
made the subject of public prosecution, had been formed into primers 
for the purpose of inculcating into the minds of children that descripi- 
tion of pestilence. His honourable and learned friend had stated 
that it was a mistake to say that anything like blasphemous or sedi¬ 
tious doctrines were taught in certain schools. But admitting the 
statement of his honourable and learned friend to be quite correct, 
would that serve to prove the fallacy of the information which he 
(Mr. P.) communicated to the house upon a former evening ? That 
information he still believed to be correct; and surely his honour¬ 
able and learned friend was not prepared logically to maintain, that 
because he was acquainted with certain schools where no such mis¬ 
chievous system of education was admitted, that therefore this sys¬ 
tem was not pursued in any other schools. His honourable and 
learned friend’s contradiction could not, indeed, be effective, unless 
it applied to the precise schools in which he (Mr. P.) had the best 
authority for stating that instruction in blasphemy and sedition 
actually prevailed. But he had this evening had a letter put into 
his hands by a member of that house not then in his place, from 
which letter it appeared that the blasphemous doctrines which had 
of late been so widely circulated, and so justly censured, were in¬ 
serted in primers, for the purpose of inoculating children in a parti¬ 
cular school, the name of which he felt it would be indelicate to 
mention. The letter he should be happy to communicate to his 
honourable and l.arned friend, but he did not feel that he should be 
justified in pointing out the particular school, as the individual con¬ 
cerned would have no opportunity of defending himself. And now, 
having said so much as to his personal vindication, he begged leavu 
to say a word or two with respect to the merits of the bill under con- 


182 


plunket’s speeches. 


jideration, which, iiv concurrence with the language of his right 
honourable friend on the other side of the house, he could not cou- 
ceive in any degree an infraction of the liberty of the press. In the 
first place, this measure did not in any degree interfere with the 
great standard and truly useful works which were published by the 
respectable booksellers: and then as to those ephemeral publications 
which were called newspapers, which were highly respectable, and 
in which facts were fully stated—in which productions were gene¬ 
rally tolerated, as they ought to be, far beyond the line of argumen¬ 
tative disquisition, this measure only proposed to put other periodi¬ 
cal publications on the same footing as those newspapers. What, 
then, could be fairly urged against the adoption of such a measure? 
It was said that there was a class of publications containing ribaldry 
and trash which no respectable newspaper would admit, because any 
newspaper inserting such offal would not be read long or continue 
respectable; and that such publications should be tolerated for the 
indulgence of a certain part of the people. All that was intended 
was, to impose the same duty on those publications which were now 
sold for twopence as upon newspapers; and this he would say, that 
if any portion of the people required such a supply of filthy luxury 
—if they would have such a separate table, they must pay for the 
gratification of their depraved appetites. His honourable and learned 
friend, whose eloquence he heard with the admiration which the 
whole house must have felt, had deplored the fate of young literary 
aspirants, who, he said, would suffer by the operation of this measure. 
But how suffering was to be apprehended he could not at all ima¬ 
gine, and he could not help expressing his astonishment that this 
distinguished individual, who was so worthy to be the great historian 
of his country, could condescend to fall in with the clamour that was 
raised upon this occasion, and to contend that the restriction of the 
tilth and ordure was calculated to restrain the liberty of the press, 
and to injure that freedom of discussion which was the pride and 
glory of the constitution of England. The aspirants alluded to by 
his honourable and learned friend would have ample opportunity, 
notwithstanding this measure, to send forth their productions to the 
country, and therefore there could on that score be no reason ro op¬ 
pose the enactment of such a law. The bill was only calculated to 
suppress those publications which were likely to abuse rather than to 
maintain the liberty of the press. In the whole course of his poli¬ 
tical life he had never done anything more satisfactory to his own 
mind, or which appeared to him more deserving the approbation of 
bis country, than the part which he had taken on this and the other 




REPLY TO BROUGHAM. 


183 


measures which, with a view to the public safety, the house bad 
lately felt it necessary to adopt. 


DUBLIN CITY ELECTION, 

June 24, 1820. 

On the death of Henry Grattan, his son offered himself to represent Dublin in 
his place. He was opposed and defeated, after an exciting contest, by Master 
Ellis, of the Court of Chancery. Plunket appeared at the hustings to nominate 
him, and I quote the following imperfect, but interesting, report from the elec¬ 
tion pamphlet:— 

Mr. Sheriff, I shall endeavour, as well as I can, to perform the 
mournful duty which has fallen to my lot. 

[Here the right honourable gentleman’s utterance became quite choked, and 
after a struggle for a few moments against his feelings, he was overcome by 
their violence, and he burst into tears. As soon as he recovered some compo¬ 
sure, he proceeded.] 

My friend the lord mayor has pronounced a deserved panegyric upon 
my learned friend, Mr. Ellis. He has told you that he is a man of 
honour, of integrity, of independence, and to the justice of the pane¬ 
gyric, I most cordially subscribe. But when 1 heard my w ortby 
friend, Mr. M‘Quay, say he was a fit person to succeed Henry Grattan, 
I felt the situation to which that gentleman was reduced : I felt the 
humiliation he was undergoing, when announcing Master Ellis a fit 
person to represent Henry Grattan ! If I were to stop here, and only 
pronounce that name, without further comment, I know ten thousand 
responsive feelings would burn in the breast of every man who regards 
the independence and honour of his country. But, sir, I must dis¬ 
charge my painful duty to my young friend—I cannot—I am unable 
—every affection of my nature is drawn back to the tomb of him 
who honoured me with his friendship. 

[Here his powerful emotion again overcame him, and again the whole audi¬ 
tory sympathised in his sorrow. As for Mr. Grattan, he wept bitterly during 
til the time the right honourable gentleman was speaking.] 

I would deem it sacrilege and impiety, if I were to suffer any feel¬ 
ing of faction or party to interfere with this solemn duty. When I 
see Protestants and Catholics intermingled in this assembly, I feel I 
am surrounded by friends, and cursed be the wretch who, by any art 
or expression, would endeavour to kindle the flames of contention 


184 


plunket’s speeches. 



amongst them. I will not here attempt the vain task of recapitula¬ 
ting the services and the virtues of the friend we have lost. They 
are far above the reach of my humble powers to do them justice. 
But great as his patriotism was, no feeling was ever more grateful to 
his heart, than the support of the Protestant constitution. It was 
the rare felicity of that immortal man, to have been at once the ad¬ 
vocate of every class of his majesty’s subjects, and to have given 
equal satisfaction to all; and in the highest soarings of his enthu¬ 
siasm, and in the warmest zeal of his exertions, the pole star that 
guided both, was his wish to strengthen the connexion. I do not 
now talk of Protestant or Catholic. It would be profanation to the 
dead to make any distinction. I came here to talk of Ireland ! And 
never could I perform a duty more serviceable to my countrymen, 
than to implore them not to degrade themselves by trampling on the 
ashes of their father, and their benefactor. And I tell my learned 
friend, that I could never offer him a sincerer mark of friendship, 
than by advising him to retire from a contest, in which he could not 
triumph, without sharing in the degradation of those who have thrust 
him forward. How I should compassionate his feelings, when paraded 
through those streets, his memory would return to the days when 
that great man, now no more, passed those same streets, between the 
files of his countrymen, resting on their arms, as it was well said, 
Hi admiration of his virtues. 

Even when proud Ccesar ’midst triumphant car^ 

The spoils of nations, and the pomp of wars, 

Ignobly vain and impotently great, 

Show’d Rome her Cato’s figure drawn in state, 

As her dead father’s reverend image past 
The pomp was darkened and the day o’ercast. 

The triumph ceased—tears gushed from every eye, 

The world’s great master passed unheeded by; 

Her last good man dejee.ed Rome adored, 

And honoured Cajsar’s less than Cato’s sword. 

When I look at my young friend who sits beside me, my mind is 
led back to the times when I saw his great father scaring and blast¬ 
ing with his lightnings the ranks of venality and corruption. It is 
led back to those hours, when, disarmed of his lightnings, I beheld 
him in the bosom of his family, surrounded by innocence, and domes¬ 
tic tenderness. My young friend beside me inherits those virtues 
—his father’s image walks before him, and when a mean idea could 
enter his breast, he must be possessed of a boldness in infamy beyond 
the share of moderate degeneracy. If, then, it be asked what secu¬ 
rity exists for his parliamentary conduct, i will answer—“ his name,** 


DUBLIN CITY ELECTION. 


185 


The son of the man, unequalled in the annals of history—the man who 
raised his country from the degradation of a province, to the rank of 
a nation—the man who has been honoured by the great, the good, 
the illustrious—he who sleeps amidst kings and patriots, and the 
most distinguished statesmen—for the empire claims the honour of 
entombing him, and his very ashes confer a glory upon Britain. 

I am now led to consider the claims of my learned friend, who I 
admit to be a man of honour, of integrity, and of talents. 1 will not 
ask what are the acts he has done, the proofs he has giveu, the trials 
he has undergone; but I will say in direct terms, if he possessed 
every qualification—if he possessed a genius as transcendent as the 
immortal man he claims to succeed—if he manifested as ardent a 
patriotism—if he had procured a free trade for his country—I say 
that still, Master Ellis ought to be rejected by the citizens of Dublin. 
Are you aware, that he is at this moment under a responsibility as 
awful as the trust you are called upon to repose in him ? Are you 
ware of the duties he is bound to discharge by his office, which he 
has said (inadvertently, no doubt) he holds independently, but in 
which he has deceived you, for he only holds it during pleasure. 
He is bound by his oath, to sit in his office from eleven to three 
o’clock during term, and out of term from twelve to three. He is 
obliged, as he himself has sworn, to attend ten months of the year 
in his office, and to spend his evenings in preparing his decisions for 
the next day. Let me now ask, how he can realize the promise of 
Mr. M‘Quay, that he will assiduously attend to his duties in West¬ 
minster! Will he keep that promise? He gives you bad security 
for it, when he abandons the old trust confided to him, and for 
which he is well paid. Who is capable of doing all that? Is 
Master Ellis capable of discharging his duties in Dublin, and in 
Westminster together? 

[Mr. Plunket then read an account, from Mr. Ellis’s own examination in the 
commissioners of inquiry’s report, of the different important and difficult duties 
lie had to perform in all matters of account, taxing of costs, &c., in the 
Court of Chancery.] 

These are not like the duties of a judge, with the intervention of 
a jury; they are not like the decisions of a judge pronounced in 
open court, with the wholesome check of the public eye upon him. 
He has a difficult and complicated duty to discharge, in which he 
must exercise the soundness of his own discretion. I do not mean 
to say, that Master Ellis would suffer any improper feeling to sway 
ms mind in the administration of justice; but when a disappointed 
suitor leaves L.s office, who has been opposed to anutua’ su;.ui* who 


186 


plukket’s speeches. 


has a vote, and he himself has none; will he, however justly he be 
condemned, utter no murmur when retiring? Justice must be not 
only pure, but unsuspected. Will that man be unsuspected, who is 
deciding the cause of a person in the evening, to whom he has doffed 
his hat in the morning, supplicating him for his vote ? I do not say 
this lightly; I am not now upon a topic calculated to catch popular 
applause, or tickle the ears of some individuals, but I pledge myself 
this circumstance shall not pass, without being made a subject of 
legislative investigation. I am aware that there are instances of 
English masters in chancery having been in parliament. My answer 
to that is twofold. It is physically possible for a master in London 
to discharge the duties of both offices. But how is a man, who is 
obliged to remain in his office in Dublin for ten months in the year, 
able to attend to his parliamentary duties in London? He can only 
be absent from his office for two months in the year, as he himself 
has sworn, and that in the middle of the long vacation, when the 
parliament is not sitting; therefore, if he is so anxious to assist the 
legislature, he can only do it with his advice, and he can do that as 
he is. If he is so eager to enlighten them by his advice, in God’s 
name let him give it to them now. But I assert, there never was 
such a thing heard of as a master in chancery, even in England, 
canvassing for a contested election. If such a flagrant outrage of 
the first principles of justice were attempted in the sister country, 
the delicacy of English notions of right would shrink with alarm 
from it. And let me ask my honest friends, are they acting a worthy 
part, when they propose, to a man, to do an act which would be con¬ 
sidered an outrage to justice in London ? They think they are now 
serving themselves—that they are promoting their interests, and 
forwarding certain schemes—but I predict, that before many months 
will have elapsed, every man who has taken a part in this degrading 
transaction, will wish he was not born on the day he first interfered 
in it. 

Mr. Plunket then adverted to the Catholic cause and the late Mr. Grattan » 
advocacy of it, whose object, he said, lie knew was to give strength to the. .Pro¬ 
testant connexion, and security to the empire. 

It is the basis of liberty, and I shall therefore bo their advocate. 
They are not storming the constitution, by wild theories and danger¬ 
ous innovations, but are calmly, temperately, and constitutionally 
seeking for their rights; and if they desisted, they would be de¬ 
graded—if they were contented to be the creeping slaves they are, 
and abandoned their lofty aspirings after liberty, 1 would warn 
every in the land against the contagion of their socic j». 


CaTHOL’C relief. 


187 


The right honourable gentleman concluded by saying— 

1 am probably shortly to lay their claims before the legislature, but 
I shall feel disabled and paralyzed if I do not see my young friend 
beside me, sheathed in the armour of his immortal father. 

He then proposed Henry Grattan, Esq., as a fit and proper person to repre¬ 
sent the city of Dublin in parliament. 


CATHOLIC RELIEF. 

February 28, 1821. 

Fon eight years the claims of the Catholics were utterly disregarded in par¬ 
liament After the defeat of Grattan’s bill in 1813, the House of Commons 
relapsed into its old temper of indifference, and peace brought back such a 
sense of security in England that no British minister would peril his place by de¬ 
voting himself to a measure merely Irish, and ao hateful to the House of Lords. 
In 1814 the petitions were simply presented. In 1815 Sir Henry Parnell at¬ 
tempted to get a committee on the Irish petition, but was defeated by a majo¬ 
rity of 81. Jn 1816 Grattan brought forward the question, and was beaten by 
a majority of 3J. In 1817 Lord Donoughmore in the House of Lords, Grattan 
in the House of Commons, again moved. Although the majorities grew every 
year less and less, still the annual motion had become a mere parliamentary sham- 
battle. In May, 1818, General Thornton elicited what was considered a favour¬ 
able debate, by moving directly the repeal of the test acts; but neither the 
Catholics nor the government had given him any sanction, and on Castlereagh's 
motion the house passed unanimously to the previous question. Next year, how¬ 
ever, the majority against Grattan was only two; and the tone of the debates, 
the growth of public opinion outside, and the abilities, union, and courage which 
had begun to be displayed in the Irish Catholic agitation, indicated that some 
decisive attempt at a settlement should soon be made. 

Grattan died in 1820, and Plunket succeeded to his parliamentary position to¬ 
wards the Catholic cause. In that session nothing was attempted, owing to the 
queen’s trial. But in the first session of the new parliament, a combined attempt 
6f the English and Irish Catholics was made, and Plunket appeared in formal 
charge of their case. On the 28th of February, the debate preceding the second 
great effort to remove the Catholic disabilities occupied the house. 

Lord Nugent opened the business by presenting the petition of the English 
Catholics, signed by 8000 persons. The Duke of Norfolk, earl marshal of Eng¬ 
land, headed that long roll of aliens for conscience sake. Seven peers and four¬ 
teen baronets of the oldest and purest blood in England followed his name. Seven 
of the churchmen, who then discharged the duties of the dormant Catholic hier¬ 
archy of England, signed among the aristocratic laity of their caste—but the name 
of the vehement polemic Doctor Milner was missed from the list. Then followed 
the scanty thousands of the Saxon people, scattered all over the length and 
breadth of Britain, who through bloody persecutions and the systematic con¬ 
tumely of the law for continued centuries, had clung faithful to the faith of Bede 
and of Beckct, of Alfred and of More. 

Since the debate of 1813, the question had undergone anxious discussion in 
the House of Lords, and the bench of bishops had with natural eagerness entered 
upon the controversy. In the Bishop of Norwich the Catholics found an abla 


188 


PLUNKETS SPEECHES. 


and zealous advocate. Plunket, in the conrse of his speech, argues in reply to cna 
of the most conspicuous prelates upon the other side. Dr. Marsh, who had been ad 
vanced to the bishopric of Llandafif, and thence translated to that of Peterbo¬ 
rough, opposed Lord Donoughmore’s motion in an ingenious speech, the object 
of which was to show that the Catholics were not excluded from the blessings of 
the constitution for their belief respecting transubstantiation, the invocation of the 
saints, or their other speculative religious opinions, but because they divided their 
allegiance, giving part of it to their own sovereign, and part to a foreigner—were 
therefore deficient in civil worth, and ought not to be placed in the same rank 
with those who gave all their allegiance to their native king. This was new 
ground, and elicited from Plunket one of the most masterly displays of sheer 
log'c ever heard in the English House of Commons. 

Another branch of his argument is in reply to Peel, and on the mere political 
grounds—that the Catholics were too strong a body to be entrusted with full civic 
faculties, bound as they were by all their instincts and passions to use whatever 
powers the constitution should endow them with to plot and perpetrate the sub¬ 
version of the Protestartt church establishment—therefore, that emancipation 
really meant the separation of Ireland and ruin of church and state. The rest of 
this long and powerful speecli is an exact analysis of the historical and legal re¬ 
lations of the Catholics to the constitution, and a demonstration that in consis¬ 
tency the house was bound to continue the reactionary course of legislation which 
for the last half century had been in their favour, and that their complete eman¬ 
cipation was a measure dignum , justum , et salutare , fraught with security to ex¬ 
isting establishments, and for the general good of the commonwealth. 

The tirst of the Irish petitions was that of the Catholic committee. 

Sir, I hold iii my hand a petition, signed by a very considerable 
number of his majesty’s Roman Catholic subjects of Ireland. From 
the names attached to it, which amount to many thousands, distin¬ 
guished for rank, fortune, talents and everything which can confer weight 
and influence,—from the means which these persons possess of col¬ 
lecting the opinions of the people in that pact of the United Kingdom— 
the petition may be fairly considered as speaking the sentiments of 
the great body of the Roman Catholics of Ireland. 

A similar petition was presented, from the same body, the year 
before last. It is unnecessary for me to remind the house that, on 
that occasion, it was presented by the late Mr. Grattan. It was 
sanctioned by the authority of his name, and enforced by all the re¬ 
sistless powers which waited on the majesty of his genius. I have 
no design to give vent to the feelings with which my heart is filled, 
or to mingle with the public mourning the mere peculiar and selfish 
regrets, which have followed to the grave the friend by whose confi¬ 
dence l was honoured, by whose wisdom I was instructed, by whose 
example I was guided. His eulogium has been heard from the lips 
of kindred eloquence and genius. The last duties have been rendered 
to his tomb by the gratitude and justice of the British people. In 
his death, as iu nis hie, he has been a bond of connexion between the 
countries. 



CATHOLIC RELIEF. 


18 ? 


I will not weaken the force of that culogium, or disturb the so¬ 
lemnity of those obsequies, by my feeble praise, or unavailing sor¬ 
row ; but with respect to the sentiments of that great and good man 
on this particular question. 1 wish to say a word. Sir, he had me¬ 
ditated upon it deeply and earnestly—it had taken early and entire 
possession of his mind, and held it to the last. He would willingly 
have closed his career of glory in the act of asserting within these 
walls the liberties of his countrymen ; but still, regarding them as 
connected with the strength, the concord, and the security of the 
empire. Sir, he was alive to fame—to the fame that follows viituo. 
The love of it clung to him to the last moments of his life ; but 
though he felt that “ last infirmity of noble minds,” never did there 
breathe a human being who had a more lofty disdain for the shal¬ 
low and treacherous popularity which is to be courted by subser¬ 
viency, and purchased at the expense of principle and duty. He 
fAt. that this question was not to be carried as the triumph of a 
party or of a sect, but to be pursued as a great measure of public good, 
m which all were bound to forego their prejudices, and to humble 
their passions for the attainment of justice and of peice. 

In the humble walk, and at the immeasurable cis:ance at which 
it is my lot to follow the footsteps of my illustrious friend, I pledge 
myself to be governed by the same spirit. 1 have a firm and en¬ 
tire persuasion, that justice and policy require that the prayer of this 
petition should be complied with ; but I am equally convinced, that if 
this question is pressed, or carried on any other terms but such as will 
give full satisfaction to the Protestant mind, it cannot be productive 
of good. All these objects appear to me to be attainable ; with this 
\iew, and in this temper only will 1 prosecute them. 

Mr. riiinlcet then moved, that the petition should be brought up. 

Mr. Denis Browne seconded the motion. The petition was brought up, 
read, and ordered to be printed. _ - 

Petitions to the same effect, from the Roman Catholic inhabitants of the 
parishes of St. Anne's, St. Andrew’s, St. Mark’s, and St. Peter’s, in the city of 
Dublin, and from the Roman Catholic inhabitants of the county and city of 
"Waterford, were brought up by Mr. Plunket, read, and ordered to be printed ; 
after which Mr. Plunket, having resumed his place, spoke in substance as fol¬ 
lows :— 

Sir, having presented the petitions-confided to me by so respectable 
portions of the Roman Catholics of the empire, it now remains for mo 
to discharge my duty as a member of this house, by bringing forward 
a motion founded on their prayer, and calculated for their relief. I 
desire to be considered as applying, not on the part of the Roman 

N 


190 


plunket’s speeches. 


Catholics, praying to be relieved from the pressure of a grievance ; 
but, as a member of the legislature, on behalf of Protestants and 
Roman Catholics both. I require of this house to take into their 
consideration, earnestly and immediately, the relative situation of both; 
a situation which, on the one side, involves the charge of harshness 
and injustice ; which excites on the other a sense of injury and op¬ 
pression, and which, in its consequences, must be degrading and dan¬ 
gerous, as well to the party which inflicts as to the party which suf¬ 
fers. My primary object, therefore, is to arrive at public good by 
doing an act of public justice. I am sure that if it is an act of jus¬ 
tice, it will be the foundation of ultimate concord. I believe besides, 
that it w ill be productive of a high degree of immediate satisfaction, 
and will be followed by a warm feeling of gratitude. 

But these are advantages secondary and inferior, although cer¬ 
tainly desirable, and not to be left out of the account. To suppose 
that the allaying of present discontent is the principal object of the 
measure which I have the honour to bring forward, is utterly to under¬ 
value its importance, and to misconceive its bearing. Sir, the Roman 
Catholics of both countries have nobly disentitled themselves to such 
a topic. On their part, I am bold to say, that determined as they 
are never to abandon their claims on the justice and on the wisdom 
of parliament, their resolution is equally fixed to await, with patience 
and confidence, the result of that wisdom and justice in which they 
know they cannot be finally disappointed. That there does exist an 
anxious and eager desire in that body to share in the rights of Eng¬ 
lishmen, I should be ashamed, for them, to deny. That there may 
grow a sickness of hope deferred, which ought to be administered to 
them, I will not attempt to conceal. Neither am I so sanguine as to 
think, or so silly as to assert, that the adoption of any measure which 
can be proposed to parliament, will have the effect of allaying at once 
every unpleasant feeling which a long course of unwise policy may 
have produced. 1 do not entertain the childish expectation that con¬ 
cession will operate as a charm, and that at the very moment in which 
the storm has ceased to blow, the waves will subside and the murmurs 
will be hushed; but I feel convinced that agitation cannot be for¬ 
midable or lasting, and that in rendering justice we must obtain secu¬ 
rity. 

And, sir, these are not the questions of statesmen. Our duty is 
to inquire whether injustice is offered to our fellow-subjects, and it 
so, to atone for it; whether grievances press on them at which they 
have reason to be dissatisfied, and if so, to remove them; whether 
injurious distinctions exist, and if so, to obliterate them. If these 




CATHOLIC RELIEF. 


191 


things excite discontent, the more onr shame to suffer injustice, and 
grievances, and injurious distinctions to remain, and the more im< 
perious the call on every honourable mind to do them away. 

I desire, therefore, in the outset, to have it distinctly understood, 
that my object is not to apply a palliative to temporary or accidental 
humours. I call on the deliberate wisdom of this house to look at 
things, and into their causes. If they find any institution pressing 
heavily and unnecessarily on the rights and feelings of any portion of 
the subjects, they know that it must ultimately generate discontent; 
that the longer it is continued, the deeper that discontent must sink 
into the hearts of the aggrieved parties. And if, sir, these grievances 
bear not on individuals, or on small classes, but on the great mass of 
the people, in one of the most important portions of the empire, the 
house must feel that not a moment should be lost in averting the evils, 
which must grow from a state of society so alarming and unnatural. 
Admitting, then, that this great measure is exposed to the lot of all 
human measures for the happiness of human beings ; that the un¬ 
reasonable will not be convinced ; that those who wish for war, will 
not rejoice in peace; that the bigots in politics and in religion will 
remain true to their bigotry and blind to their interests; still, I say, 
you do your duty as legislators, and doubt not that they will do their 
duty as subjects. The lasting fruit of honest government is lawful 
obedience, as certainly as insubordination and resistance grow from 
insolence and injustice. 

Before I enter on the considerations which appear properly and 
necessarily to belong to the subject, I beg leave, sir, to deprecate a 
mode of dealing with it which has been uniformly, and, I fear, not 
unsuccessfully resorted to,; I mean the argument that our plan is 
not perfect: that there are incongruities in the detail; that some of 
the offices, which we propose to open, are as dangerous as some of 
those which we propose to keep closed; that some of the oaths 
which we propose to retain, are unwise and affrontful as those which 
we desire to abrogate; that we are not all agreed as to the condi¬ 
tions which we would impose, or as to the necessity of at all impos* 
ing them. 

Sir, this appears to me to be neither a fair nor a manly mode of 
meeting the question. 

If the measure, in any shape or form, is altogether inadmissible, 
be it so: show this, and there is an end of it. 

But, be it good, or be it bad, no man can doubt that it is a ques¬ 
tion of deep and vital importance. Docs justice require it ? I)oes 
the constitution admit of it ? Does policy allow it ? All these are 


132 


plunket’s speeches. 


fur and open questions, and must be met. But if, without impeach-* 
ing it on tiiese solid and substantial grounds, you content yourselves 
with saying, that the particular measure is not well matured, or that 
there are inconsistencies in the detail, or that the proposed arrange¬ 
ments are not clear or accurate; these, I say, are considerations to 
excite every man, who feels an interest in the public good, to come 
at once to the discussion, to join his labours in reconciling the diffi¬ 
culties, and in rounding the arrangements. But it is neither a manly, 
a patriotic, nor, give me leaye to say, an honest part, to condemn the 
principle because the plan is weak. To him who says that the prin¬ 
ciple of concession is, in itself, radically vicious, I have no other 
answer than to join issue on its soundness. But to him who admits 
that the matter is of deep and earnest interest, but who, without 
saying whether it ought or ought not to be effected, demurs to its 
consideration, because lie sees imperfections in the means pro¬ 
posed, I have a right to answer, where is your privilege for neu¬ 
trality or indifference in that which concerns you as much as me, 
because it involves the best interests of your country ? If your ob¬ 
jection grows solely from the difficulty, assist me in getting rid of the 
difficulty; help me to clear up what is obscure, to reconcile what 
appears inconsistent, to facilitate what appears difficult to reduce to 
practice; join with me in removing the obstacles to that which, if it 
is not public evil, is public good. 

Sir, this is not a question on which any party has a right to lurch, 
and practise stratagems, and take advantage. If it be not utterly 
inadmissible, the state has a claim on every man who feels that he 
has that within him which is capable of rendering public service, to join 
in the consideration of this question as its friend and auxiliary. 
These claims are not to be encountered as an invading enemy, or 
avoided by device and stratagem. We come forward with no inno¬ 
vation on ancient practice, with no attack on constituted authority, 
no quarrel with existing establishments, no storming of the strong-- 
holds of the constitution, no theoretical experiment for new rights, 
no resting on unvouclicd professions; but an unanimous body, con¬ 
sisting of millions of the king’s liege subjects, come before parliament, 
humbly and peaceably, men whose uudeviating loyalty stands re- 
corded on your journals and your statute books; they come forward 
petitioning to be admitted to the privileges enjoyed by their ances¬ 
tors, in order that they and their posterity may enjoy and exercise 
them, in cordial support of all the establishments, of all the lawful 
authorities of the state, according to the well-known principles, and 
the sound, tried, practical doctrines of the constitution. 



CATHOLIC RELIEF. 


193 


Sir, such claims are entitled to an honourable meeting. Let them 
be put down by reason and by truth; but, if that cannot be done, 
every able and honest man is bound to assist me in the details which 
are necessary (and most difficult I admit them to be) for carrying 
them into effect. 

I really do not apprehend that I have to encounter any feeling of 
hostility in this house. I am sure no man wishes that the plan of 
conciliation should be impossible. That there cannot be discovered 
such a plan, I believe no man has sufficient grounds for asserting, 
I have some confidence in expressing the hope and opinion that there 
may, because I know that, within the last few years, nearly a majority 
of this house was of opinion in favour of a specific plan, of which admis¬ 
sion to parliament formed a part; and had it not been for the indiscre¬ 
tion of some of those who fancied they were friends to the Roman 
Catholics, that measure would then have probably been carried. 

Sir, at that time the empire was reeling to its centre under the 
heaviest tempest that ever was weathered by a great nation. I will 
not believe that any person who, in that hour of danger and dismay, 
yielded his assent to the desires of the Roman Catholics, will now be 
disposed to retract it. It will not easily be forgotten that, proud and 
noble as the exertions of the whole British people have been in bring¬ 
ing that contest to a triumphant issue, no portion of them have been 
more distinguished than the Roman Catholics. They have shed their 
blood in defence of our laws and liberties, with a prodigality of self- 
devotion which proves them worthy to share in them. This house 
and this country, I trust, have not hot and cold fits; and I know 
that the question will now receive an attention as anxious and favour¬ 
able as if the enemy were pressing to land upon our shore, and our 
hopes of immediate safety rested on the cordial union of every por¬ 
tion of our people. 

Whatever difference of opinion exists on this subject, there is little 
of hostility, nothing of rancour. Prejudices, I must say, I believe 
there are; but when I call them so, I acknowledge them to be de¬ 
rived from an origin so noble, and to be associated with feelings so 
connected with the times when our civil and religious liberties were 
established, that they are entitled to a better name; and I am con¬ 
fident that they are accessible to reason and open to conviction, if 
met by the fair iorce of argument without rudeness and violence. 
Sir, it is impossible to mistake the feeling of the house and of the en¬ 
lightened part of the country on this subject, or to doubt that it is 
.a growing one. 

The liberal and gentleman-like temper in which the question has 


'194 


plunket’s speeches. 


been discussed, is in itself of the highest value; not merely from the 
hope it holds out that the cause, if just, must ultimately prevail, but 
from the soothing influence with which it gains on the minds of our 
fellow-subjects. With respect to the Roman Catholics of Ireland, I am 
satisfied that the tone in which the rejection of their claims has of late 
years been uttered, has considerably softened their disappointment at 
that rejection; and I do not think I injure the interests of my country¬ 
men, when I say that the character of fair and liberal discussion 
with which the question has been met in the united parliament, the 
absence of invidious party feeling, the freedom from bigotry, the for¬ 
bearance and moderation which has generally marked the opinions 
and governed the language of the opponents of the measure, has 
done more to conciliate their minds than many of the concessions 
which had formerly been made ; yielded, as they too generally were, 
with grudge and reluctance, and accompanied by reproachful charges 
and degrading insinuations. 

And now, sir, I shall proceed, without further preface, to the main 
argument. The question presents itself in three distinct points ot 
view ; as a question of religion, as a question of constitutional prin¬ 
ciple, and as a question of policy and expediency, in reference to the 
stability of our existing establishments. 

On the first topic it is not necessary that I should say much. I 
am led to advert to it, not so much from the bearing that the appli¬ 
cation of the religious principle to civil rights has upon the argument 
as it regards the Roman Catholic, as from a feeling of tb« serious 
injury which it is calculated to vk rk to the cause of ^nstianity. 
As an argument affecting the Roman Catholics, merely as such, it 
has of late been altogether abandoned. So far the cause of religion 
and of truth is much indebted to a right reverend prelate* of the Es¬ 
tablished Church, to whom I shall presently have occasion more par¬ 
ticularly to allude. He has fairly acknowledged, (and no one of the 
right reverend bench, in whose presence he made the acknowledg¬ 
ment, disavowed his sentiments), that the profession of the Roman 
Catholic religion, merely as a religious opinion, or otherwise than as 
affording an inference of a want of civil worth, was not properly the 
subject of any political disability. Perhaps therefore, so far as the 
present measure is concerned, I might safely dismiss the further con¬ 
sideration of this topic; but on my own behalf, and on behalf of all the 
members of this house, who are obliged to make the declaration now re ¬ 
quired by law, I hope I shall be excused if I make a few observations. 

In the first place, it appears obvious that the requiring a religious 
* The Right Rev. Herbert -Marsh, Bishcp of Peterborough. 




CATHOLIC RELIEF. 


194 

pledge to the state, as a qualification for civil rights, makes religion 
an affair of state ; because you cannot lay it down as a rule to be 
applied only in a case of true religion; for every religion is the true 
one in the opinion of its own professors; and therefore, if the posi¬ 
tion is true in our instance, it must be equally true that, in every 
state, Protestant or Catholic, Christian or Pagan, the interests ot 
true religion require a pledge to the state that the person admitted to 
its privileges is of the religion of that state. All this leads to the 
unavoidable inference that, in the opinion of those who so argue, 
there is no truth in any religion, and no criterion other than its adop¬ 
tion by the state. I do not say that such a principle may not be 
taken on trust by an honest man, and hotly insisted on by him, if 
ho happens to be a zealous man, but I say it cannot be deliberately 
and rationally maintained by any person who believes that there is 
any absolute truth in any religion. 

Again, if religion is to be an affair of state, why not require some 
positive profession of faith, as a qualification ? Such as that he is a 
Christian, or that he believes in God, or in a future state, or that he 
has an immortal soul ? Why does the declaration sound only in hor¬ 
ror, and antipathy, and denunciation of another religion ? If the law 
is to be put into a state of electricity by the church, why not of posi¬ 
tive electricity ? 

Again; if we are to denounce, why denounce only one particular 
sect of Christians ? Why not Socinians ? Why not those who 
deny the divine nature of our Lord ? Why select those who believe 
all that we do, merely because they believe something more ? Why 
not Jews, Mahometans, Pagans ? Any one of these may safely 
make the declaration, provided he is willing to commit the breach of 
good manners which it requires. He may not only deny our God 
and our Redeemer, but he may worship Jupiter or Osiris, an ape or 
a crocodile, the host of heaven or the creeping things of the earth; 
let him only have a statutable horror of the religion of others, and 
agree to brand with the name of idolatry the religion of the greater 
part of the Christian world. But further, if the Roman Catholic 
religion is to be singled out as that, by the common bond of hatred 
to which we are all to be united in the ties of brotherly love and 
Christian charity, why select only one particular article of their faith, 
and say that the sacrifice of the Mass is impious and idolatrous ? 
Why leave them their seven sacraments, their auricular confession, 
their purgatory, all equally badges of superstition, evidences of 
contumacy and causes of schism ? Why make war exclusively upon 
this one article ? We all declare solemnly that we consider the sa- 


196 


plunket’s speeches. 


erifice of the Mass as superstitions and idolatrous. Now I entreat 
each member of this house to suppose that I am asking him indi¬ 
vidually, and as a private gentleman, docs he know what is said, or 
meant, or done in the sacrifice of the Mass ; or how it differs from 
our own mode of celebrating the communion, so as to render it super¬ 
stitious and idolatrous ? If I could count upon the vote of every 
member, who must answer me that upon his honour he does not know, 
I should be sure of carrying, by an overwhelming majority, this or 
any other question I might think it proper to propose. Were I now 
to enter on a discussion of the nature of these doctrines, every mem¬ 
ber would complain that I was occupying the time of statesmen with 
subjects utterly unconnected with the business of the house or the 
policy of the country. Can there be a more decisive proof of its 
unsuitableness a3 a test ? 

Still, even at the hazard of being censured for my irrelevancy, X 
must venture one or two observations on the point denounced. It 
is important that I should do so, because the truth is that at the 
reformation the difference between the two churches on this point 
was considered so slight and so capable of adjustment, that it was 
purposely left open. Our communion service was so framed as to 
admit the Roman Catholics, and they, accordingly, for the first twelve 
years of Elizabeth’s reign, partook of our communion, and there is 
nothing to prevent a conscientious Roman Catholic doing so at this 
day. The sacrament of our Lord’s Supper is, by all Christians, held 
to be a solemn rite of the Church, ordained by its divine founder as 
a commemoration of his sacrifice, and most efficacious to those who 
worthily receive it with proper sentiments of gratitude and contri¬ 
tion ; so far, all Christians agree, and we are on the grounds of Scrip¬ 
ture and of common sense ; but beyond this the Roman Catholic is 
said to assert that the body of our Lord is actually present in the 
sacrifice. Now this, in the only sense in which I can affix a mean¬ 
ing to it, I must disbelieve. It is contrary to the evidence of my 
senses and to the first principles of my reason. But the Roman 
Catholic states that he does not believe the body of our Lord to be 
present in the Eucharist, in the same sense in which it is said to be 
in heaven; for he admits that the same body cannot be in two 
places at the same time, but it is present in a sense ; the council oi' 
Lateran says sacramentally present. Now what this sense is I own 
baffles my faculties. The proposition which states it I can neither 
affirm nor deny, because I cannot understand it any more than if it 
was laid down as a dogma, that it was of a blue colour, or six feet 
high. I feel satisfied, as a sincere Christian, resting ou Scripture and 




CATHOLIC RELIEF. 


107 


reason, that it is not necessary for me to involve myself in these 
mysteries; and of this I am sure that I should act a very unchris¬ 
tian as well as a very ungentleman-like part, if I were to join in 
giving foul names to the professors of this, to me, incomprehensible' 

dogma. 

Whether it be a fit subject for polemical controversy I will not 
pretend to say. Queen Elizabeth certainly thought it was not, and- 
forbade her divines to preach concerning it; and they thought her 
judgment too good on such points not to render an implicit obedience 
to her commands. I will beg leave, sir, to read a short extract from 
Burnet’s History of the Reformation, bearing on this point:—“The 
chief design of the queen’s council was to unite the nation in one 
faith, and the greatest part of the nation continued to believe such a 
presence (the Real Presence), therefore it was recommended to the 
divines to see that there should be no express definition made against 
it; that so it might be as a speculative opinion, not determined, in 
which every man was left to the freedom of his own mind.” Such 
Were the opinions of Queen Elizabeth, the founder of the Reforma¬ 
tion. Perhaps no monarch ever swayed the British sceptre who 
had so profound an acquaintance with the royal art of governing. 
To the Protestant religion, certainly, no monarch ever was more 
sincerely and enthusiastically attached. On the truth of these opi¬ 
nions she hazarded her throne and life. But she respected the opi¬ 
nions and the sincerity of others, and refused to make windows to 
look into the hearts of her subjects. She, Queen Elizabeth, the 
founder of the Reformation, altered the liturgy, as it had been framed 
in the reign of Edward the Six h, striking out all the passages which 
denied the doctrine of the Real Presence ; and this for the avowed 
purpose of enabling the Roman Catholics to join in communion with 
the Church of England; and am I to be told that this was done in 
order to let in idolaters to partake of, and to pollute our sacrament ? 
But it seems some of the divines of our day are better Protestants 
than Queen Elizabeth. If she were alive again I should be curious 
to see them tell her so. Indeed, sir, these things are calculated to 
injure the cause of true religion. The Christian is a meek and well- 
mannered religion, not a religion of scolding and contentious reviling; 
it is an outrage on that religion and a dangerous attack upon its 
evidences, to say that the mission of its divine Founder has hitherto 
served only to establish superstition and idolatry among mankind; 
and that, except tor a favoured few, his blood has been shed in vain. 
In whatever point of view we turn this question, the absurdities in¬ 
crease upon us. We have legalized their religion and the sacrifice 


193 


plunket’s speeches. 


of the Mass; and if that is idolatrous, the king, lords, and com¬ 
mons are promoters of idolatry. By the 31st of the late King wo 
require the party claiming certain privileges to swear that he is an 
idolater. By the same act we excuse him from coming to our church 
only on condition of his going to mass ; that is, we inflict on him 
penalties which are to be remitted on the express terms of his com¬ 
mitting an act of idolatry. By the same act we inflict penalties on 
any person who disturbs him in the exercise of his idolatry. In Ire¬ 
land, we admit him to the magistracy, and to administer the laws of 
a Christian country, requiring from him, as a preliminary condition, 
his oath that he is an idolater. When we reflect on all this, and 
remember that we have established their religion in Canada, and that 
we are in close alliance, fur the purpose of protecting religion and 
morals, with great nations professing the Roman Catholic religion, is 
it not obvious that the perseverance in such a declaration is calculated 
to bring our religion and our character into contempt, and to make 
thinking men doubt the sincerity of our professions ? Whatever may I 
be the fate of the other part of this question I cannot bring myself 
to believe that this outrage upon the religious decencies of the coun¬ 
try will be suffered-to remain on our statute book. 

Sir, I shall now proceed to the consideration of the question, so 
far as it involves the objection derived from the supposed existence 
of certain principles of the constitution, inconsistent with the claims 
of the Roman Catholics. I shall endeavour to show that the exclu¬ 
sion of the Roman Catholics from franchise and from office, is repug¬ 
nant to the ascertained principles of our free monarchy; that these 
principles existed before the reformation, and were coeval with tho 
first foundation of our constitution ; that they were not touched at 
the reformation, or at the revolution, or at either of the unions; that 
the restriction or suspension of them grew out of temporary causes ; 
that they were so declared and acknowledged at the time; that, 
when well considered, they afford a confirmation of the principle; 
that these causes have long since ceased to operate; that we have 
acknowledged it; that we have acted ou this acknowledgment in 
concerns of the deepest moment; that we have framed a course 
which, if the acknowledgment be true, is imperfect justice; if false, 
is absolute folly and rashness; and that, if we stop where we are, 
we are precisely in the situation of exciting every discontent, and 
organizing every mischief which can be generated by a sense of in¬ 
jury, and arming the party aggrieved with all the strength, aud all 
the means of wreaking that resentment, which belong to solid and 
essential power; a situation from which cannot be relieved by 



CATHOLIC RELIEF. 


m 


shifts or devices; a situation, whose difficulties must every day aug¬ 
ment, and, if only put aside, must recur with aggravated pressure; 
that there is only one mode of dealing with the difficulty; that the 
part of justice and of safety is the same ; that we are called on to try 
the principle on which we have acted during the entire of the late 
reigns, and if we find it a sound one, to carry it to its full extent. 

By the constitution of'England, every liege subject is entitled, not 
merely to the protection of the laws, but is admissible to all the 
franchises and all the privileges of the state. For the argument I 
have now to deal with is this : “ that by some principle of the con¬ 
stitution, independent of the positive law, the Roman Catholic is ne¬ 
cessarily excluded.” What then is this principle of exclusion ? 
Merely this, “ that the Roman Catholics acknowledge the spiritual 
supremacy of the Pope.” Why then if, independently of the positive 
law, this acknowledgment deprives them of the privileges which be¬ 
long to the liege subjects of the realm, the exclusive principle must 
have been irf force before the law. If so, there did not exist in 
England a liege man entitled to the privileges of the constitution 
before the time of Henry the Eighth ; for till then all acknowledged 
the spiritual supremacy of the Pope. Magna Charta was established 
by outlaws from the state. Those gallant barons, whose descendants 
have been so feelingly alluded to by my noble friend,* though they 
were indeed permitted to achieve, yet were not entitled to share the 
liberties of the.' 1 ’ country. They might not dare to open the great 
charter which Lad been won by their hardihood and patriotism. 
Nay, more, if this principle be true, there is not, at this moment, a 
liege subject in any Catholic country in Europe. Sir, such trash as 
this shocks our common sense, and sets all argument at defiance. 

What is this spiritual supremacy of the Pope, and how doe3 it 
affect the civil allegiance of the subject ? The Roman Catholic sub¬ 
mits to the authority of the common and the statute law ; he ac¬ 
knowledges the force and bindingness of all constituted authorities 
and jurisdictions, civil and ecclesiastical; he claims no coactive or 
contentious jurisdiction, or other than a merely conscientious one; 
and the fullest illustration of this may be found in the fact—that 
^though spiritual censure might, in this conscientious forum, attacii 
to a marriage which our law allows, yet still the Roman Catholic 
fully admits the legality of the marriage for all civil purposes, and 
would visit with spiritual censures any member of his church who 
transgressed against the civil rights which belong to the wife or to 
tne issue. 


Lord Nugent. 


200 


plunket’s speeches. 


This I believe they are ready to testify, in any form of words yon 
may think it right to introduce; or to take the oath of supremacy, if 
altered or explained in that sense ; and for the purpose of trying the 
practicability of some such measure, I propose going into committee.- 
Sir, if it is said that the spiritual power may be abused for temporal 
purposes, and that the appointment of their bishops may be an instru¬ 
ment for such purposes,. I admit both ; I shall allude to them more 
particularly before I conclude, and I, for one, shall mo t cheerfully 
concur in the appropriate remedies; but to say that, therefore, the 
allegiance of the Roman Catholic is imperfect, is an abuse of terms.- 
After the repeated declarations of the legislature of both countries on 
this subject, it would seem not unreasonable to require from those 
who take upon themselves to graduate the scale of allegiance, for the 
purpose of exclusion from common right, to show where, in the prin¬ 
ciples of our law and constitution, or where, in the regions of common 
sense, they find the canon on which this exclusion is founded. Sir, it 
has been with no ordinary degree of regret that I have hoard the opinion 
of the distinguished and learned prelate,* to whom I have before al¬ 
luded, on this subject. With a candour which does him honour as 
a minister of religion, he fairly avows that the religious consideration 
is entirely to be thrown out of the case,.save so far as it bears on the 
civil worth of the party. But he says, that “ inasmuch as the 
Roman Catholic yields that spiritual homage to the Pope which (as 
he thinks) the Protestant of the Established Church of England 
yields to the King, and which the Protestant of the Established 
Church of Scotland yields to no man, he conceives himself warranted 
to infer that he possesses less of what he calls civil worth ; and not 
only this, but that this difference is so important as to become a 
specific difference, and therefore to warrant the separation of the 
Roman Catholics into a distinct species, necessarily excluded from 
offices and franchises, while the two others contiuue entitled to the 
enjoyment of both.” Sir, this is the kind of reasoning which Mr. 
Locke describes as “ seeing a little, presuming a great deal, and so 
jumping to a conclusion.” It might have occurred to the mind of 
"he learned prelate, accustomed to the precision of mathematical 
\>roof as he is, that if the Roman Cataoiic, for the reason assigned, 
really had less civil worth than the Protestant, it would not there¬ 
fore follow that he should be excluded, miless the Protestant’s quan¬ 
tity of civil worth were first proved to be the minimum which would 
warrant admission. But what may be the nature of this quality 
'which he is pleased to designate under the new appellation of “civil 
* Dr. Marsh. 


CATHOLIC RELIEF. 


201 


worth,” lie has not thought proper exactly to .state. It leaves out, 

I presume, all consideration of birth or fortune, or such like; also 
the accidental circumstances of education and learning arid talents.; 
r Iso the unessential attributes of truth and honour and probity ; 
these all are circumstances too mean to form any part of his abstrac¬ 
tions. I must presume so; for the person who possesses them all 
in the highest degree, if he happens to acknowledge the spiritual 
supremacy of the Pope, is actually excluded, is below zero in his 
scale of “ civil worth.;'” and the person who is utterly destitute of 
all of them is admitted, provided he is not so punctilious as to refuse 
to deny that supremacy. 

To the English dissenter, and to the orthodox Scotchman, he 
manifests a degree of indulgence which does more credit to his libe¬ 
rality than to his logic. They, it seems, are deficient in this “ civil 
worthbut still lie admits them rather, I suppose, to a kind of 
limbo, between the enjoyments which belong to perfect allegiance 
and the curse of utter exclusion. But he has, by some process, as¬ 
certained that the Roman Catholic has reached the exact degree oi 
deficiency which necessarily draws down the sentence of condemna¬ 
tion. 

Sir, it would have become the gravity and station of the person 
who made this assertion to refer to some authority or analogy of our 
constitution to warrant it, and not arbitrarily to draw a line of such 
fatal denunciation, merely because he has discovered a circumstance 
which distinguishes from each other two classes of his fellow-subjects 
and fellow-Christians. Mr. Burke truly says, that “ there is no 
description of men more absurd than the metaphysician, who, deal¬ 
ing in essences and universals, rejects the consideration of more and 
i less;” and never was the justice of this truly philosophical remark 
more strongly exemplified than in this argument, which excludes 
from the pale of the state, and from the hope of the royal favour, the 
Howards and the Arundels, and the long line of illustrious persons 
who luve shone with the brightest lustre oil the noblest periods of 
our history, who have gained the charter of our liberties, and fought 
.the battles of law and freedom; and all for this want of “ civil 
worth;” while it lets in the lowest and the vilest, no matter of 
what description, slaves or traitors, outcasts from everything con¬ 
nected with truth or virtue, merely because their “ civil worth” is 
authenticated by denying the spiritual authority of the Roman 
Pontiff. 

Sir, neither in this nor in anything is our constitution metaphy¬ 
sical or pedantic. Political constitutions are not like natural ones; 




202 


flunket’s speeches. 


they grow out of the action of man on man ; there must be choice^ 
approbation, distinction founded on moral differences. The wisdom, 
tnd justice, and discretion, by which the moral order is administered, 
*re all unlike the laws of matter and of motion, which govern the 
physical world ; and, therefore, when we hear of a machinery so con¬ 
stituted as to be capable of letting into trust everything that is un¬ 
worthy, and of shutting out everything that is exalted, we may be 
assured that we have to do with idle dreams, and that they do not 
proceed from any waking, sober, practical views of British law and 
constitution. If it is said that this touchstone does not let in the 
rabble I have described, but merely makes them eligible, then we 
come back to the true principles of our policy; the power of the 
crown to reject the base, and to select the worthy; the power of the 
people to exclude from the franchises which depend on their favour 
the candidates who are not deserving; and above all, the controlling 
good sense and vigilance of the public mind to see that these privi¬ 
leges are not abused. 

These, sir, are the sound, and rational, and practical principles on 
which our constitution has been formed; by these it must be pre¬ 
served, and not by the affectation of what Mr. Pitt, with peculiar 
felicity, calls “ a harsh uniformitynot by inert abstractions, which 
are fit only for the school and the cloister, but become ridiculous 
when applied to the concerns of states and to the business of life. 

I speak in the presence of enlightened constitutional lawyers and 
statesmen, and I do not fear a contradiction when I assert, that the 
doctrine of exclusion is not to be found in the principles, or in the 
analogies of our constitution, or in the history of our country, or in 
the opinion of any statesman whose name or memory has reached us. 
It is, at once, inconsistent with the subject’s rights and with the 
king’s prerogatives. Ours is a free monarchy, and it is of the essence 
of such a government that the king should be entitled to call for the 
services of all his liege subjects, otherwise it is not a monarchy; 
and that no class of his subjects should be excluded from franchise, 
otherwise it is not a free monarchy. I use the word franchise, not 
in the lawyers’ technical sense of it, as a right supposed to be de¬ 
rived by prescription or grant from the crown, but in the sense of 
Mr. Burke, when he applied it to the right of voting for members 
to sit, and to the right of sitting in parliament. Sir, these are 
privileges not derived from the grace of the crown or the permis¬ 
sion of the legislature, or from the positive declaration of any written 
law, but drawn from the great original sources from which crown 
and law and legislature have been derived; from the sacred fountains 




CATHOLIC RELIEF. 


203 


of British constitution and freedom; the denial of which, as justified 
by any supposed principles of our constitution, I take on me to de¬ 
nounce as founded on a radical ignorance of the essence and stamina 
of our civil polity. 

Such was not the opinion of Lord Bacon. With the permission of 
the house I will read the words of that illustrious statesman and phi¬ 
losopher. In his bird’s eye view of our constitution, after enume¬ 
rating the classes of alien enemies, alien friends, and denizens, he 
goes on thus: “The fourth and last degree is a natural born subject, 
and he is complete and entire ; for, in the law of England,, there is 
nil ultra; there is no more subdivision, no more subtle distinction 
beyond these - r and hence it seems to me that the wisdom of our 
law is to be admired, both ways, both because it distinguisheth so 
far, and because it doth not distinguish farther; for I know that 
other law3 do admit more curious distinctions of this privilege; for 
the Roman law, besides “ jus civiiaiis ,” which amounts to natura¬ 
lization, has “jus suffragii for though a man were naturalized to 
take lands of inheritance, yet he was not entitled to have a vote at 
the passing of laws, or at election of officers, and yet further they 
have “jus petztionis” or “jus honorum/’ for although a man had a 
voice, yet he was not capable of honour or office; but these are the 
devices commonly of popular or free estates, which are jealous whom 
they take into their number, but are unfit for monarchies, but by the 
law of England, the subject that is natural bom hath a competency 
or ability to all benefits whatever.” 

This principle of exclusion, therefore, is equally at war with the 
prerogative of the crown, and the title of the subject. It wrests the 
sceptre from the king that it may strike at the liberties of the people, 
and obtrudes an unconstitutional monopoly on the just rights of both. 
It is an insolent republican principle, which has more than once been 
publicly and universally reprobated in this house; the principle of 
lawless association, for the purpose of lawless exclusion, and which 
promises a conditional allegiance teethe monarch, so long only as he 
shall uphold the arrogant and exclusive claims of one class of his 
subjects against the inherent rights and privileges of the other. 

1 shall now proceed to show that this principle of common right 
■was not touched, or meant to be touched, at the Reformation. The 
house will be so good as to excuse my dwelling somewhat on this 
part of the question, as no portion of our history is less understood 
than that of the Reformation, in as far as it affects the civil rights 
of the Roman Catholics. Sir, the act of supremacy tvas intended, 
not as a test of religion, but of loyalty ; not to distinguish the 


:204 


plunket’s speeches. 


Roman Catholic from the Protestant, but the well-affected Roman 
Catholic, who acknowledged the queen’s title and authority, from 
the disaffected, who denied both. The title of the act is, “ An act 
for restoring to the crown the ancient jurisdiction over the state, 
ecclesiastical and spiritual.” The queen’s injunction and admonition 
were issued to explain the oath for the express purpose of enabling 
the Roman Catholics, as well as other classes of dissenters, to take 
it. After ordering all offensive words, such as Papist, heretic, 
schismatic, to be forborne, under severe pains, she declares “ that 
she does not pretend to any authority, save that which had at all 
times belonged to the imperial crown of this realm, namely, that she 
had the sovereign rule over all persons under God, so that no foreign 
prince had rule over them ; and if those who formerly appeared to 
have scruples about the oath were willing to take it in that sense, she 
was well pleased to accept of it, and did acquit them of all penalties 
in the act.” This explanation so given by the authority of the 
queen is adopted by the legislature and incorporated into the act of 
the 5th of Elizabeth, which is the first that requires the oath of 
supremacy from the members of the House of Commons. The 17th 
section of this act is particularly entitled to attention ; it recites in 
these words, “ whereas the queen is otherwise sufficiently assured 
of the loyalty of the temporal lords of her high court of parliament; 
therefore the act shall not extend to them.” Here, sir, is a legisla¬ 
tive proof that the act of supremacy was a test, not of religion, but 
of loyalty, not of exclusion but of selection; and accordingly it 
enumerated a class of acknowledged Roman Catholics, of whose 
faith and loyalty she was assured, and as such admitted them to the 
high court of parliament, and to all offices whatsoever. I have 
already adverted to the alteration of the litany and communion ser¬ 
vice for the express purpose of admitting the Roman Catholics ; and 
any person who will take the trouble of looking into the history of 
the times, will see that for the first twelve years of her reign the 
Roman Catholics attended the service of the Church of England ; 
so it is stated by Lord Coke in Cawdry’s case, and so by Rapin, 
Burnet, and Hume. Nor was it until the twentieth year of her 
vieign, when the Spanish schemes against her crown and life were 
aided by the machinations of the foreign priests imported into Eng¬ 
land, that the punishment and exclusion of the Roman Catholics 
commenced. Sir, all this is well explained in Walsingham’s letter 
to Monsieur Critoy, which is to be found in Burnet. The queen 
there recognises two principles, “ first, that consciences were not to 
be forced, but to be won and reduced by force of truth, with the aid 


CATHOLIC RELIliF. 


205 


of time and all good means of instruction and persuasion; the other, 
that causes of conscience, when they exceed their bounds and grow 
to be matters of faction, lose their natures; and that sovereign 
princes ought distinctly to punish their contempt and practices, though 
coloured with the pretence of conscience and religion ; not to make 
windows into men’s hearts, but to punish their overt actsand he 
defends her majesty from the charge of being a temporizer in religion. 
“ It is not (he says) the success of things abroad, or the change of 
servants here at home can alter her; only as the things themselves 
altered, she applied her religious wisdom to methods correspondent 
with them, only attending to the two distinctions above-mentioned, 
first, in dealing tenderly with conscience; and secondly, distinguish¬ 
ing faction from conscience and softness from singularity.” These, 
sir, I repeat it, are the dictates of royal wisdom, and thus, I hum¬ 
bly trust, our gracious sovereign will apply his royal and religious 
wisdom, that as the things themselves have altered, he may adopt 
methods correspondent with them. During the entire reign of Eliza¬ 
beth, some of the highest and most confidential offices in the state 
were filled by Roman Catholics; and Mr. Hume states, as a thing 
notorious, that James the First gave preferment indifferently to his 
Roman Catholic and Protestant subjects. 

That Roman Catholics sat and were considered as entitled to sit 
in the House of Commons as well as in the House of Lords, until 
excluded by the act of the 30th of Charles the Second, is evident from 
Sir Salomon Swaile’s case ; in the year 1677, (the year before the 
30th Charles the Second,) he was expelled, not for being a Papist, 
which was admitted and notorious, but for being a recusant. Sir 
Robert Sawyer’s argument is this, “ a Popish recusant cannot come 
near the king’s person, and cb fortiori he cannot be of the great 
council of the realm ; whoever disables himself from his attendance 
in parliament you ought to dischargeand the resolution of the 
house is, “ that Sir Solomon Swaile is convicted of Popish recu¬ 
sancy, and therefore discharged.” So that for one hundred and 
twenty years after the reformation had been completed by Elizabeth, 
the notion that any merely religious tenet should disqualify for civil 
rights was never acted on or announced; the very title of the act 
of the 30th Charles the Second is decisive, it being “ for the more 
effectually preserving the king’s government by disabling Papists to 
sit in either house of parliament.” Sir, the reason is obvious why 
the measure was then resorted to ; the religion of Charles was more 
than suspected, and the presumptive heir was known to be a Roman 
Catholic ; and had he been at liberty to fill the offices of the state 

o 


2 06 


plunket’s speeches. 


with Papists (in the most offensive sense of the word), and to pack 
a Popish parliament, tliere would have been no safety for the Pro¬ 
testant establishment, or for the civil liberties of the country. This 
case properly formed an exception to the universality of Lord Bacon’s 
rule; for the king’s power of selection ceased to afford any security. 
The functions of royalty were so far paralyzed, or worse, and the except 
tion proves the justness of the rule. But were the exceptions then 
introduced made fundamental articles of our constitution? Were 
they incorporated with the great principles declared at the Revolu¬ 
tion? No ; but the particular mischief is for ever guarded against, 
by making it a fundamental law of the land, that the king shall be 
of the Protestant religion as by law established; thus applying a 
remedy precisely commensurate with the evil, not declaring that the 
valves of the constitution should be for ever closed against any por¬ 
tion of the people, but putting them under the control and guardian¬ 
ship of the king, declaring that he should execute that sacred trust 
no longer than while he continued a member of the Established 
Protestant Church. Sir, if I am asked, why then, when the Protes¬ 
tantism of the throne was thus secured, did the provisions of the 
30th of Charles the Second continue ? I answer, because the danger 
was not in fact done away, or at least the apprehension of it; be¬ 
cause the return of the exiled family still impended over the country; 
that we have narrowly, by Cod’s providence, escaped that calamity; 
and that it was not until nearly the period of his late majesty’s ac¬ 
cession that all apprehensions on that score were effectually removed. 
But any person acquainted with the history of that period knows 
that the 30th of Charles the Second was merely a substitute for a 
bill of exclusion; and that if the latter could have been obtained the 
former never would have been resorted to; and Bishop Burnet tells 
us that King William mainly rested the policy of that law on the 
Popery of the throne, stating that, while the king was not a Pro¬ 
testant, that law was the only security of the establishment. 

Sir, I think I have now shown that these notions of exclusion are 
at war with the original spirit of our constitution, and that they form 
no part of the system either of the reformation or of the revolution. 
I will now proceed to demonstrate, from the records of parliament 
and the authentic history of the times, that this act of Charles the 
Second, which had been adopted as a necessary restriction for the 
time, was always refused as a permanent law, and carefully kept out 
of the wholesome circulation of the constitution ; and that the period 
was always looked to, and the means anxiously preserved, of recur¬ 
ring to its irue principles when the accidental obstruction should ba 


CATHOLIC RELIEF. 


207 


removed. Sir, by the act of the 4th and 5th of Queen Anne, cap. 8, 
the lord? justices were empowered to act in the event of the queen’s 
death, until the arrival of her successor; the 16th section of the act 
disables them from giving the royal assent to any bill for repealing 
the act of uniformity. And why ? Because it was held to be a per¬ 
petual and fundamental law. But it was proposed in the Hoftse of 
Lords to introduce a clause disabling the commissioners from assent¬ 
ing to the repeal of the 25th of Charles the Second (the test act), or 
the 30th of Charles the Second, (the act requiring the declaration), 
and the proposition was rejected ; here then is a direct and positive 
proof that the statesmen and legislature of that day did not contem¬ 
plate the perpetual continuance of that law$ and that they considered 
it as of a different class and order from that which secured the Pro¬ 
testant established church fundamentally and unalterably; yet now 
it seems it has become a sacred element of the constitution, which it 
would be sacrilege to touch. When, on the following year, the Scot¬ 
tish Union was brought forward, they did not venture even to pro¬ 
pose the 30th of Charles the Second, as a provision to be incorpo¬ 
rated as fundamental, but the zeal of bigotry did propose the test aud 
corporation acts. The proposition was made in the blouse of Lords, on 
the 1st of February, 1706, for the insertion of the test act as a fun¬ 
damental law, and, in the House of Commons, for a similar insertion 
of the test and corporation acts, and on full debate, the propositions 
were, in both houses, rejected. What the parliament intended as 
fundamental, ifc expressly declares, namely, the Scotch act for the 
security of the church of Scotland, and the English act for the secu¬ 
rity of the church of England ; and they declare, that the said acts 
shall, for ever, be held and adjudged to be observed as fundamental 
and essential conditions of the said union, and shall, at all times 
coming, be taken to be, and are thereby declared to be, essential and 
fundamental parts of the said articles and union ; but when they come 
to state the oaths to be taken on admission to parliament, the words 
are these, that every one of the lords of parliament of Great Britain, 
and every member of the House of Commons, until the parliament of 
Great Britain shall otherwise direct, shall take the oath of allegiance 
and supremacy, and shall subscribe the declaration contained in the 
act of the 30th of Charles the Second. 

What are the terms of the act of union with Ireland ? “ That 

every one of the lords of parliament, and every member of the House 
of Commons of the United Kingdom, shall, until the parliament of 
the United Kingdom shall otherwise provide, take the oaths and sub¬ 
scribe the declaration now by law required to be taken, made, and 


208 


plunket’s speeches. 


subscribed by Jie lords and commons of the parliament of Great 
Britain.” Sir, here is the clear and express recognition by the legis¬ 
lature of both countries of the temporary nature of these oaths. In 
the words and in the spirit of both the unions, I call upon you now 
“ otherwise to determine.” Backed then by the known principles of 
the constitution, growing out of the nature and essence of our free 
monarchy; backed by the history and well authenticated objects of 
the Reformation, by the public declaration of Queen Elizabeth, and 
of her ablest ministers; supported by the declarations of the 5th of 
Elizabeth, expressly stating that the oaths required were tests of 
loyalty aud not of religion, and admitting the Roman Catholic peers 
on the ground of their known loyalty, independent of the oath ; sup¬ 
ported by the admitted practice of one hundred and twenty years 
from the 1st of Elizabeth to the 30 th of Charles the Second; having the 
clear evidence of history to show that the innovation then made grew 
out of circumstances accidental and temporary; supported by the 
Bill of Rights and Act of Settlement, which provide the proper remedy 
for the temporary evil, by a perpetual and fundamental law, securing 
the Protestantism of the throne; supported by the positive refusal of 
the House of Lords, in the 4th and 5th of Queen Anne, to treat it as 
a fundamental law; by the facts of its not being ventured to be pro¬ 
posed as a final regulation at the Scottish Union, though the test and 
corporation acts were so proposed, and unsuccessfully; with the pro¬ 
vision in the articles of that Union, which, while it defines the articles 
that were to be held fundamental, declares that the oath and decla¬ 
ration shall continue to be taken only until the British parliament 
should otherwise provide; and with the express provisions of the 
legislatures of Great Britain and Ireland, at the Irish Union, to the 
same effect; supported as I am by the records of parliament, and the 
undeniable facts of history, by the acts of the last fifty years, which, 
if this principle were a sound one, would have been a continued out¬ 
rage on the constitution; with the authority of the illustrious men 
who were cotemporary with that system of conciliation; Dunning, 
Pitt, Fox, Burke, Sheridan, Wyndham, enlightened statesmen, who 
saw their way, and engaged in this order of restoration on no light 
or superficial views, but on careful results, as wise and deliberate as 
they were liberal and noble, and who were well aware that if this 
course were to end in anything short of the full renovation of civil 
rights, it would have been, not a plan of policy, but a paroxysm of 
frenzy; supported by these great names, and not encountered by 
one which nas had sufficient buoyancy to float along the stream of 
time; with these authorities, I ask, have I not redeemed (I had al- 


CATHOLIC RELIEF. 


209 


most said triumphantly) the pledge which I threw down, when I ar¬ 
raigned the principle of exclusion as founded on a radical ignorance 
of the essence and stamina of our constitution. Triumph, sir, I can¬ 
not feel when I miss the ornaments of this house, when there is 
painfully obtruded on my mind the recollection of the losses which 
this cause and this country has more recently sustained ; of Mr. 
Whitbread, the watchful and incorruptible sentinel of the constitution; 
the more than dawning talents and virtues of Mr. Horner; the ma¬ 
tured excellencies of Sir Samuel Rom illy, a light extinguished, which 
threw a steady lustre, not merely on his profession and his country, 
but over all the interests of mankind; Mr. Ponsonby, the constitu¬ 
tional statesman, who led the ranks of opposition with disinterested 
honour, equally revering the constituted authorities and the people’s 
rights; my ever-lamented friend Mr. Eliot, noble in his nature as 
he was liberal in his sentiments, a model of what aristocracy ought 
to be, a bond between the people and the throne; Sir Arthur Pigott, 
the genuine representative of the sound, honest, constitutional English 
lawyer; above all, when I revert to this last and heaviest disaster, 
this dark and overwhelming calamity on which I dare not trust my¬ 
self to speak—I feel anything but triumph; I feel that in passing be¬ 
fore the images of these illustrious men, there is a funeral gloom 
thrown over this great procession, in which we are moving to offer 
up our bad passions and angry prejudices upon the altar of freedom 
and of concord. But, sir, though I feel no triumph, I boldly appeal 
to the sense and candour of the house, whether what I have endea¬ 
voured to demonstrate does not require some better answer than 
vague and general assertions, that the principles of the constitution, 
and of the reformation, and of the revolution, are hostile to the claim 
of civil rights, and whether the Roman Catholic can consider himself 
as fairly dealt with while his exclusion is rested on such gratuitous 
and arbitrary dogmas. 

I am conscious that I press on the indulgence of the house, but 
there remains one topic to which it is absolutely necessary that I 
should closely and earnestly address myself, because 1 know that 
there are many persons, most worthy, respectable, and liberal, who 
on the score of religion, and of constitutional principle, are quite 
alive and friendly to the claims of the ioman Catholics, but who, at 
the same time, have serious apprehensions that the removal of their 
disabilities might endanger our establishments in church and state. 
Could I believe that the measure of redress involved consequences of 
injury or of danger to these establishments, dear to my heart as I 
hold the interests of my Roman Catholic countrymen, I should aban* 


210 


plunket’s speeches. 


don their long-asserted claims, and range myself with their oppo¬ 
nents ; but haviug the most entire conviction of the groundlessness 
of the apprehension, and entertaining a sanguine hope that such alarms 
may be removed from the minds of those who are sincere in their 
profession of them, I particularly entreat the attention of the house. 
To the right honourable member for. the university of Oxford,* I 
beg leave especially to address myself, and I assure him I do so with 
all the respect due to his talents, his acquirements, and his integrity; 
to his high principles as a statesman and as a gentleman; I am well 
aware that there is no member of this house whose opinions are so 
likely to have influence on this subject, or whose being confirmed in 
his prejudices (if they are prejudices) is so likely to produce serious 
injury to the country. 

Is it true then, that the church is not exposed to any danger ? I 
certainly will not take it on myself to make the assertion; but I say 
that this danger, whatever it may be, exists at this moment, and that 
the proposed measure, therefore, cannot produce it; I say, that it is 
not calculated to increase it; I go further, and I assert that it is, in 
the highest degree, calculated to diminish it. 

Sir, the question is unfairly dealt with when it is asked what se¬ 
curity have we for the Protestant church, if we adopt this measure ? 
1 answer, every security which you have if you do not adopt it, and 
a great many more. The fallacy consists in supposing that we pro¬ 
pose to pass from a state of security and ease, to an untried scene of 
difficulty and danger ; whereas the danger at this moment exists— 
the disproportion between the Roman Catholic population, and that 
of the establishment (I speak of Ireland) is not produced by this 
measure; the insecurity is in the narrowness of the basis, which 
neither this nor any other measure can either cause or remove, though 
it may in some degree remedy it; and it is beyond the reach of hu¬ 
man art to provide an adequate remedy in any other way than by 
making it the interest and duty of this population to abide by and 
to support the establishment. Let those who propose not to med¬ 
dle with this question, but to leave it to tide and time, consider the 
nature of the dangers as stated on a former occasion by the right 
honourable member for Oxford, or suggested by him, and every one 
of which exists at this moment in all its dimensions, without any re¬ 
ference to this measure. I shall endeavour to enumerate them sub- 
tantially as put forward by him, or as necessarily resulting from the 
statements made by him. 

Fust, the exceeding disproportion of the Roman Catholic to the 
* Mr. Pf.el (afterwards Sir Robert). 


CATHOLIC RELIEF. 


211 


Protestant population in Ireland. The right honourable member did 
not, I believe, profess to state it exactly ; I myself believe that it is 
much greater than is generally supposed,—certainly more than four 
to one—but for the purpose of this argument it matters not. 

Next, this great majority principally contribute to the support of 
the establishment to which they do not belong. Besides this, they 
exclusively support their own clergy. 

By the principles of their religion they are in direct communication 
with a foreign potentate, through the medium of their clergy. This 
communication is uninterrupted and uncontrolled by the state. 

Though the Roman Catholic clergy possesses a most extensive in¬ 
fluence over the passions, opinions, private and political principles 
and actions of the laity, yet the state neither exercises nor possesses 
any control over their appointment. 

The established religion is not merely that of the small minority, 
but one which has dispossessed the great majority. This has been 
effected, not as in England, by a reformation of public opinion, but by an 
act of state, leaving the necessary consequences, irritation and hostility. 

This great majority is in the unprecedented situation of being ex¬ 
cluded from a great proportion of the franchises, offices, and honours 
of the state, not on account of any moral or political delinquency, but 
merely on account of its religion. They are at the same time ad¬ 
mitted to the full enjoyment of substantial power, including the com¬ 
mand of our fleets and armies. 

This ejected majority, if they are actuated by the motives by 
which man is ordinarily actuated, and by the feelings which nature 
inspires, must have views hostile to the religious establishments of 
the state. 

Though they disavow such principles on their oaths, still they must 
entertain them, and therefore they have been admitted to their pre¬ 
sent privileges on the faith of oaths which, if they are sincere in their 
religious opinions, cannot bind them. 

They are, therefore, required by the legislature, and have accord¬ 
ingly stooped to stain themselves with the odious crimes of hypocrisy 
and perjury; the liberal feelings of the right honourable gentleman 
will, no doubt, induce him to say that he does not impute to them 
the wilfulness of perjury, but that they deceive themselves; be it so; 
as to the extent of the danger it matters not; they are swearing 
against nature, and their oath affords no security; our danger is as 
great as if they were admitted without the oath, with this difference, 
that it is admitted that the oath which they are ready to take, can¬ 
not, on such a subject, bind them. 



212 


elunket’s speeches. 


Being thus incapable of being bound by oaths, they are, at this 
moment, shut out from what is sought by oaths only. 

The country in which all these dangers and anomalies exist is se¬ 
parated by nature from that to which it is united by law. It once 
had an independent existence; within twenty yeais had an indepen¬ 
dent legislature, and still has its separate courts of justice and dis¬ 
tinct departments of executive government. 

Now, sir, mark, if these are at all to be considered as causes of 
danger. Such is our existing state. An ejected majority of four to 
one; irritated and hostile; subject to the unbounded influence of a 
clergy appointed by a foreign potentate, unregulated by the state; 
placed in a portion of the empire separated by nature, recently and 
imperfectly united by law; and observe, this hostile majority, not an 
uneducated rabble, but the leaders now, and all of them, in the natural 
course of things, growing to be a wealthy, powerful, thriving, pros¬ 
perous body; actually admitted to every thing which constitutes real 
power in the state; and this on the strength of oaths which cannot 
bind them, without overturning the laws of nature; and at the same 
time, the remaining barriers and bulwarks of the state, resting on 
oaths and on oaths alone ! 

Sir, I ask any man really anxious for the safety of the Established 
Church of Ireland, is this the state in which it ought to be left ? Is 
this the bed of roses on which the right honourable gentleman is 
disposed to rest himself? These, if he is right, are the existing 
dangers, which at this moment threaten the safety of the establish¬ 
ment ; and amidst this rocking of the battlements we are told that 
the true and statesman-like conduct is to share in the repose of the 
right honourable gentleman. 

Sir, no man sensible of the dangers which really exist, and duly 
impressed with the vitality of the connexion between church and 
state, can suffer this momentous question to depart from his mind; 
it is a problem of difficulty the most extreme, but until it is solved, 
there is no safety for the country. 

The way in which the right honourable gentleman has argued the 
question is, to my mind, most alarming. The Roman Catholics, he 
says, if they have organs, senses, affections, passions, like ourselves, 
nay, if they are sincere and zealous professors of that faith to which 
they belong, will aspire to the re-establishment of their church, in 
all its ancient splendour. Why, sir, according to this view they 
ought to aspire to it! They ought to be sincere and zealous in their 
faith, and if so they will aspire to it. Why then, this subversion of 
the establishment, which we are bound to the last extremity to resist, 


CATHOLIC RELIEF. 


213 


they are bound by an equally imperious duty to aim at! And then 
the right honourable gentleman tells them they have before their 
eyes the example of Scotland, which, with her Presbyterian Church, 
has been united to England with her Episcopal Church, all jealousies 
buried in oblivion and the political union completed. 

Why then, having left the country committed in this manner; the 
establishment of the Protestant minority in Ireland opposed, not 
only to the schemes, but to what he considers as the rightful, natural, 
and necessary views of the Roman Catholic majority, who, if they 
are sincere in their religion, must desire to restore the ancient splen¬ 
dour of their church, backed as they are by a sound constitutional 
precedent in the establishment of Presbytery in Scotland ; we being 
determined, nevertheless, as I trust we all are, to hold our establish¬ 
ment; bound to do so as we value our laws, our liberties, and the 
connexion between the two countries ; and they being equally bound 
to subvert it—urged by the irresistible impulses of nature, by their or¬ 
gans, senses, affections, and passions, and sanctioned by the awful calls 
of religion in doing so—Sir, this is to leave the Protestant establishments, 
and the Roman Catholic people of Ireland, committed in necessary 
ind interminable hostility, the one side insisting on subversion, and 
the other struggling for existence ; and the right honourable gentle¬ 
man says, it is a shame to come forward with indigested schemes, 
and to disturb this happy and halcyon state of security and comfort. 

Sir, if I could view the question in the same light with the right 
honourable gentleman, I should indeed not propose to legislate; I 
should, like him, abandon it; but not like him with satisfaction; 
not under the impression that, in doing so, we were to continue in 
possession of the freedom and the glory derived from the constitution 
of our ancestors ; but under the deep and afflicting conviction that 
our glories and our freedom were doomed to perish. I should, like 
him, remain inactive, but not at rest; I should turn from the ques¬ 
tion, not to a state of tranquillity, but of torpor; the prelude, not to 
repose, but to dissolution. 

Sir, I am sure the right honourable gentleman is not aware of the 
consequences to which his position would lead. It goes to establish 
this monstrous doctrine, that the Roman Catholic who is sincere in 
his belief is bound to aim at the subversion of the establishment, and 
so divides society into two classes, those whose duty it is to support 
the establishment, and those who are bound to overthrow it. It 
leaves no alternative. Every honest man in the country must be 
ranked on the one side or on the other. The bigotry which he im¬ 
putes to the Roman Catholic imposes the duty of intolerance on our- 


214 


plunket’s speeches. 


selves. If it is of necessity a principle of their religion to overturn 
our establishment, it becomes our duty to put down their religion. If 
this serpent is fostered under their altars, we must put down their 
altars. This alarming doctrine makes the distinction between tole¬ 
rating their religion, and giving power to those who profess it, mere 
rant and folly. If that religion contains the spark which is to con¬ 
sume our establishments, we must extinguish that religion. Tolera¬ 
tion would be a crime. This imputed duty frightfully recoils upon 
ourselves, and the doctrine resolves itself into the most sublimated 
spirit of bigotry. 

It is, therefore, most consolatory to me, that, in resisting the argu¬ 
ment of the right honourable gentleman, I at the same time vindi¬ 
cate the Roman Catholics from the unmerited charge of hostility 
which is imputed, and relieve the Protestant from the hateful dijty 
of intolerance which results from the imputation. 

Sir, on behalf of the Roman Catholics, I am bold to say that, 
though they prefer their own religion to ours, yet that they find the 
Protestant religion established by law, by the same law by which their 
own lives, liberties, and properties, along with those of all the other 
subjects of this realm, are secured; that, if the right honourable 
gentleman were to state, to any well-informed Roman Catholic, the 
precedent of Scotland, he would laugh at his precedent; because he 
knows that the Presbyterian religion was the reformed religion of 
Scotland, that it was so established at the reformation, that it was 
so confirmed at the revolution, and so ordered and perpetuated by 
solemn compact between the two countries at the Union; that on 
the contrary, the Protestant established religion of England was, in 
Ireland, established at the reformation, confirmed at the revolution, 
and perpetually incorporated at the Union ; that it forms a part of 
the fundamental unalterable law of the empire; that he therefore 
prefers a Protestant establishment and an unimpaired state to a 
Roman Catholic establishment and a subverted one ; that he consi¬ 
ders the possessions of the Protestant clergy as their absolute pro¬ 
perty, secured to them as sacredly as the private possessions of any 
individual are secured to him ; that he abides by the oath which he 
has taken, to maintain that establishment, and that, so far from con¬ 
sidering himself under any obligation to subvert it, he holds himself 
obliged, by the most solemn ties which can bind him to society, as 
a man, a citizen, and a Christian, to resist all attempts at its over¬ 
throw, from whatever quarter they may proceed. Most iniquitous 
and absurd would it have been in the legislature to require that such 
an oath should be taken by the Roman Catholics, if, as such, they 


i 


CATHOLIC RELIEF. 215 

were under a religious and moral obligation to violate it; the suppo¬ 
sition would be equally degrading to the legislature which imposed, 
and to the Roman Catholic who submitted to it. 

On what authority does the right honourable gentleman, in oppo¬ 
sition to their oaths, burn and brand on the Roman Catholics this 
odious stigma ? What have they done ? What have they said ? 
What have they sworn ? He will not try them by their declarations, 
their oaths, or their actions; but, on view’s of what he calls human 
nature, he not only proscribes the great mass of the Irish people from 
the honours of the state, but on principles which, if justly imputed, 
ought to shut them out from the pale of human society. 

Sir, the sources from which the right honourable gentleman de¬ 
rives his view of human nature are not those to which I have had 
access. I cannot find in them that a Roman Catholic gentleman, 
enjoying every privilege of the British constitution, and with every 
avenue to wealth, and power, and place, and honour opened to him, 
should wish for the subversion of the state, in order that his priest 
may have a mitre. The alliance between church and state is not 
founded on any such supposed propensity in the nature of man, but 
on a principle of policy, for the security of the state, and of all reli¬ 
gion within it, and by which all sects are benefited by having the 
principles of religion incorporated with the state; and therefore to 
suppose that a man, sincere in his religion, must wish it to be the 
established one, argues an equal want of acquaintance with the na¬ 
ture of man and the institutions of society. There 1 is a profound 
political wisdom in this alliance, and every man who regards the wel¬ 
fare of the state, be his religion what it may, is bound to uphold it; 
and he would be an absurd sectarian, as well as a wild politician, 
who, on such motives as are imputed, would engage in the experi¬ 
ment of heaving the establishment from its centre, and overturning 
along with it the constitution of Great Britain. 

But, sir, this I can read in the book of human nature, that if men 
are harshly excluded from the privileges of citizens; if the door of the 
state is closed against them; if they are stopped short in the career 
of honourable ambition; if they are made an invidious exception to 
the principle which allows the talents and virtues of every man to 
rise to the level, that it may flow in the bed of the constitution; if 
they are told that they and their children, to the end of time, nati 
natorum, et quo nascentur ab illis , are to be stigmatized as a caste, 
and to be for ever excluded from honour, and station, and confidence; 
1 do read in the book of human nature, that such persons have ground 
lor discontent. And I cannot but admire the persevering cordiality 



216 


plunket’s speeches. 


with which men so circumstanced have fought the battles, and shared 
the dangers, and borne the burdens of their country. But I would 
disdain to make their patience an argument for their exclusion, nor 
can I shut my eyes to the danger which may result from its conti¬ 
nuance. 

What then is my remedy for the dangers which really exist ? And 
what is the difference in this respect between the views of the right 
honourable gentleman and mine ? 

First, I propose to regulate and legalize, within its proper limits, 
the intercourse with the see of Rome, so as to satisfy the state that 
the communication for spiritual purposes shall not be perverted to 
become an instrument of political intrigue. What is the remedy of 
the right honourable gentleman ? To leave the intercourse as it is, 
secret and uncontrolled. 

Next, I propose to regulate the appointment of the Roman Catho¬ 
lic bishops, so as to assure the government of the country, that they, 
and through them all the Roman Catholic clergy, shall be well affected 
to the state. What is the remedy of the right honourable gentle¬ 
man ? To leave the appointment as it is, unregulated and subject to 
the unmixed influence of a foreign power, which may be friendly, which 
may be neutral, or which may be hostile. The right honourable 
gentleman really seems so much in love with the perfection of his 
danger, that he is afraid of having it spoiled by any alteration. 

But, sir, my third proposition, and that to which all others must 
be secondary and subordinate, is to incorporate the Roman Catholics 
with the state. So to bind them to the present order of things, that 
their interest shall be our security. To give to the well-affected the 
reward of his loyalty, to take away from the revolutionist the pre¬ 
text and the instrument of his treason. To rivet the honest Roman 
Catholic to the state by every good affection of his nature, by every 
motive that can affect his heart, by every argument that can convince 
his reason, by every obligation that can bind his conscience; not by 
adding the weight of a feather to his power, but by relieving his 
feeling from everything that is contumelious, insolent, and personal, 
by abolishing every odious distinction, every aflfrontful suspicion, 
every degrading exclusion. What is the remedy of the right 
honourable gentleman ? To leave them as they are. Gracious hea¬ 
ven ! To leave the great body of the Irish people bound by the 
law of their nature to plot the subversion of the state ! I say of the 
state, because I trust that every man who hears me will say, that to 
subvert the Protestant establishment is to subvert the state. 

I propose, not to take tile shackles from his limbs. He is un- 


CATHOLIC RELIEF. 


217 


shackled, free, and strong as we are. But to take the brand from 
his forehead, and the bitterness from his heart, and the sense of de¬ 
basement from his mind. 

The plan of the right honourable gentleman is, to leave him for 
ever a marked man and a plotting sectary. Mine is to raise him 
from exclusion and disability to the consciousness of having the full 
possession of the highest situation that can be occupied in civilized 
society; I mean the full participation of the rights, the privileges, 
and the honours of a free-born British subject. Do not, I conjure 
you, turn your backs on this proposal of grace, of justice, and of 
security. Do not drive your Roman Catholic brother from your bar, 
as a sulky and discontented outcast. You have admitted him into 
the bosom of the state, civil and military; do not in the same 
breath insult him by saying that he is, and that he ought to be, its 
enemy. 

Sir, in considering the argument of the right honourable gentle¬ 
man, I have not stopped to meet the supposition that the power of 
the Roman Catholic body to effect any hostile purposes can be aug¬ 
mented by, or grow out of this measure. He has, I think, truly 
said, that “ in the natural, and therefore certain order of things, 
the Roman Catholic must constitute by far the most powerful body 
in Ireland.” The right honourable gentleman has notions far too 
just and statesman-like to suppose that their power can, in any ma¬ 
terial degree, be effected by their obtaining seats in parliament or 
admission to the excepted offices. No; their number, their wealth, 
their exercise of all professions, their possession of land, of com¬ 
merce and manufactures, their constituting and commanding our 
fleets and our armies; these the right honourable gentleman well 
knows are the imperishable materials of political power, and that 
wherever the wealth, and knowledge, and arms of a state reside, 
there is its real power. Since the first foundations of the civilized 
world, steel and gold have been the hinges on which its gates have 
hung, and knowledge has been the guardian of their keys; any 
attempt on the part of man to overturn this eternal scheme of nature, 
this fixed law of Providence, is shallow and presumptuous. The 
power, therefore, to subvert cannot be created by this act of justice; 
will the desire be kindled by it ? Will the Roman Catholic feel a 
respect for the establishment only on the condition of its being the 
cause of his exclusion from the state ? gratified by the injury, indig¬ 
nant at the redress ? These are puerilities to which the right 
honourable gentleman will not condescend. I agree with him in his 
manly view of the subject; if this measure is carried, we are to ex- 


218 


plunket’s speeches. 


pect and wish that in progress of time (probably a very gradual 
one) the admission of the Roman Catholics may have a fair propor¬ 
tion to their qualifications ; but I trust he will agree with me, that 
the power of making an impression on the government, or on the 
people of this country, will depend, not on the circumstance of their 
claims being personally asserted within these walls, but on the jus¬ 
tice and exigency of the claims themselves. The voice of the hum¬ 
blest subject of the realm, claiming the privileges of a citizen, will 
find its way to the honest members of this house, and to the honest 
people of this country, from the remotest corner of the empire ; it will 
find an echo in every independent mind and in every generous breast. 

In all continued struggles between a lawful government and a free 
people there can be but oue issue. That party must prevail which 
has truth and justice on its side, otherwise there is an end of free¬ 
dom or of government, it must end in despotism or anarchy. While 
you resist the claim of civil right, the Roman Catholic is armed with 
truth and justice. Grant him what he ought to have, and if he re¬ 
fuses the reasonable conditions or aspires to more, you transfer to 
yourselves these invincible standards, and you may look with confi¬ 
dence to the result. 

If it is said that the objection is not so much to any particular 
measure as to the principle of concession, and to the difficulty of 
ascertaining its limit; I do not find it easy to ascertain the exact 
meaning of the argument. Is it meant that no concession should 
ever have been made? That Ireland should have been left in the 
situation to which the penal laws had reduced her ; a jungle fit for 
the habitation of wild beasts—a moral waste, in whidh every prin¬ 
ciple of social order, and of political regulation, and of honourable 
feeling was defied ? No ; the right honourable gentleman says he 
rejoices that the system was departed from ; he says so consistently ; 
he must say so; he justly admits that restriction is in itself an evil, 
and if so, the removal of it must in itself be good. 

It must mean then that there is a point at which concession ought 
to stop. I admit it. Have we passed that point ? Wnere ought 
we to have stopped ? And are we to retrace our steps ? No ; the 
right honourable gentleman says, we have not gone beyond it, but 
we arrived at it precisely in the year 1793, and by the arrangement 
then made he abides. 

He will not, I know, condescend to the disingenuity of sayiug that 
our measure is bad because it involves a principle of concession, and 
that the principle of concession is dangerous because our measure is 
a bad one. 


CATHOLIC RELIEF. 


219 

Well then, the concessions of 1793 were wise and salutary, but 
anything more would be dangerous and unconstitutional. 

The Irish parliament, it seems, was so fortunate as to hit the exact 
point to which concession ought to go, and beyond which it ought 
not to be carried ; why then, may I ask, is it not to be carried to the 
same extent in Great Britain ? Why should not this just and critical 
measure, which has admitted the Irish Roman Catholic to the grand 
inquest, to the magistracy, to the constituency, and to various high 
offices in the state,* be extended to the English Roman Catholic, who 
is shut out from all of them, though with every claim, from rank and 
dignity, from patience and long suffering, and who is unaffected, be¬ 
sides, by those circumstances of danger which have excited so much 
alarm as to Ireland? Surely, were it for this purpose alone, the 
house ought to go into a committee. But, sir, I think there would 
be some difficulty, if we examine the'details of the Irish act of 1793, 
in demonstrating their perfect wisdom and consistency. The Roman 
Catholi'c there may be chief commissioner of the revenue, and yet may 
not hold the lowest office in the most petty corporation. He may 
be owner in fee of the estate to which the whole corporation right is 
annexed, he may transfer it, he may entail it, he may name every 
corporator and every officer, and yet he has not “ civil worth” to en¬ 
title him to the meanest of these offices. He may be proprietor of 
a borough, so as substantially to nominate the member to serve in 
parliament, and yet the state would be shaken if he were himself 
that member. 

Sir, to enumerate all the inconsistencies of this supposed measure of 
final adjustment would be endless; but there is one-so glaring that 
I must beg leave particularly to allude to it. You admit the Roman 
Catholic, both here and in Ireland, to the bar, you invite him to 
study the laws of his country, to display his knowledge on a public 
theatre, where his talents and his acquirements are tried and known; 
you engage him in a career of honourable competition; you see him 
distinguished by the approbation of his countrymen; you see every 
relative connected with him gladdened and gratified by his successful 
progress; and when his heart is beating high with the consciousness 
of desert, and the hope of fame and honour, you stop him in his 
course, you dash his hopes, you extinguish his ambition, you leave 
him disgraced and mortified, sitting on the outer benches of your 
courts of justice, and imparting the gloom of his own hopeless exclu¬ 
sion to every one connected with him by consanguinity, friendship, or 
religion. Sir, in the name of the Protestant bar of both countries, 
1 call on parliament to rescue us from this disgrace, to relieve us 


220 


PLUNKET S SPEECHES. 


from the odium and shame of this degrading monopoly, and to re* 
store us to the privilege of equal and generous and honourable emulation. 

One word more and I have done. It has been asked, where is 
concession to stop ? I say, precisely where necessity, arising from 
public good, requires the continuance of the restriction. Exclusion 
is like war, justum quibus necessarium . Beyond this it would be 
folly to proceed. Short of this it is folly and injustice to stop. By 
this test let the claim be tried. If there is any office the possession 
of which by a Roman Catholic would be dangerous or injurious to 
our establishments, let him be excluded from it. If there is any 
franchise, whose exercise can be attended with real danger, let it be 
withheld. Such exclusion, or withholding, is not an anomaly, or in¬ 
consistency, in our system of conciliation, because, when the exclu¬ 
sion is not arbitrary and gratuitous, there is no insult. Snch an ex¬ 
clusion forms no link of the chain, and the Roman Catholic will 
submit to it cheerfully; just as it would be the duty of the Protestant 
if, for similar reasons, a similar sacrifice were required from him. 
Let him know, in intelligible terms, the reason and the necessity, and 
he is satisfied. But do not, in so momentous a concern, give him 
words, and think to reconcile him. Talk to him of the Protestant 
establishment, and he understands you; he bows to it; he sees it 
engraved in capitals on the front of the political fabric. But if you 
tell him of Protestant ascendancy, or Protestant exclusion, he asks 
in vain where its title is to be found ; he looks in vain for it in the 
elements of our law or its traditions, in the commentaries of its sage 
expositors, in the reformation, the revolution, or the Union—he sees « 
in it nothing -but insult and contumacy; and he demands, in the 
name of the laws, and in the spirit of the constitution, that he may 
be no longer its victim. 

Sir, I move, “ That this house do resolve itself into a committee 
of the whole house, to consider the state of the laws by which oaths 
or declarations are required to be taken or mad'e, as qualifications 
for the enjoyment of offices, or for the exercise of civil functions, so 
far as the same affect his majesty’s Roman Catholic subjects; and 
whether it would be expedient, in any what manner, to alter or mo¬ 
dify the same, and subject to what provisions or regulations.” 

The reports state that “ the right honourable and learned member was heard 
throughout with the most profound attention, interrupted only by the loudest 
expressions of admiration and respect.” 

Peel replied, avowing, as he commenced, the charge of presumption to which 
any man would be liable who attempted to answer such a speech. “ He knew 
well that under any circumstances his adversary would be an overpowering 
antagonist; but under the present, when he replied to a speech which he (Mr. 



DR. MILNER. 


221 


Peel) had made five years ago, and which he, having the power of tearing to 
pieces then by that extraordinary faculty of reasoning which he possessed, chose 
to leave unanswered until that night, when, besides his great talents, lie had 
every other advantage, the difficulty was beyond calculation increased.” Allud¬ 
ing then to the virtues and genius of Grattan, he hailed his successor “ in the 
person of the right honourable gentleman, one than whom no man was more 
worthy to wield the arms of Achilles.” After a long and vehement speecn 
against the motion, he concluded by declaring that “ no result of the debate 
could give him unqualified satisfaction. He was, of course, bound to wish that 
the opinions which he honestly felt might prevail; but their prevalence would 
still be mingled with regret at the disappointment their success must eutail upon 
others.” Sir James Mackintosh, who spoke next in support of the motion, 
began with rapturous applause of Plunket’s speech—“ That great display of 
the prodigious talents of his right honourable friend, who had often been admired 
for his commanding powers, never so greatly exercised as upon that night, when 
he had shown himself to be the greatest master of eloquence and reasoning now 
existing in public life.’’ Dawson of Derry, Charles Grant, and Castlereagh 
spoke the only other remarkable speeches of the debate. It was the last time 
Castlereagh addressed the house on the subject, and “ differing from those friends 
with whom he usually agreed on other political and national questions,” he em¬ 
phatically repeated his opinion that the Catholics ought to be emancipated, and 
that as an insurance of the Protestant church establishment, the Catholic clergy 
ought to be pensioned. The house then divided, and the motion was carried by 
a majority of 6, in a house of 448. 


DR. MILNER. 

March 16, 1821. 

Ox the 2nd of March, Plunket stated to the house the course which he pro¬ 
posed to pursue. He would, in the first instance, submit resolutions to the com¬ 
mittee on which a bill was proposed to be founded—the first reading of which 
would be taken on the next Tuesday, and the second on the Monday following. 
The house then went into committee, the resolutions were agreed to, a bill or 
bills ordered to be brought in thereupon, and the house ordered to be called over 
on the 16th. 

On the 16th, Mr. Wilberforce presented a petition from “certain Roman 
Catholics of Staffordshire and Warwickshire against the bills now in progress 
for the relief of the Catholics,” declaring, at the same time, that he did not con¬ 
cur in their prayer. Among the petitioners was Dr. Milner, who alone of the 
English vicars apostolic, had refused to sign the petition presented by Lord 
Nugent, and whose acts and writings on the question had led to angry and 
varied controversy among the Irish and English Catholics. At one time violently 
and almost disrespectfully assailed by O’Connell as a vetoist, at another ex¬ 
pelled from the English Catholic Board for a too temerarious zeal, and detested 
by all the Protestant partizans of the cause as an unmanageable bigot, it is 
difficult to understand the prelate’s position. In noticing the petition, Sir T. 
Lethbridge triumphantly pointed to his signature as a proof that no measure 
could or would satisfy the Catholics. Upon this Plunket rose and said— 

The honourable baronet has thought proper, in 6ome degree, to 
anticipate the discussion of the subject, to which the attention of the 


222 


plunket’s speeches. 


house will shortly be directed, and I feel it necessary, therefore, to 
make one or two observations in reply to what has fallen from him. 
With respect to the signature of Dr. Milner, from which the honour¬ 
able baronet appears to derive so much satisfaction, 1 cannot help 
saying that in that individual it is only an act of undeviating, consis¬ 
tent bigotry. If I have felt some exultation in my mind that a mea¬ 
sure of the highest possible public good should now be apparently 
on the point of attainment, it is with the deepest regret that I witness 
an attempt to darken the prospect of happiness and security. The 
same evil spirit which in 1813 came forward to blast the hopes of 
the Catholics, is once more at work. The name of Dr. Milner is 
not at the head of this petition, but I am persuaded that he is 
the prime instigator of it—I am satisfied that he is at the bot¬ 
tom of a measure, the object of which is, to destroy once more the 
hopes of his Catholic fellow-subjects. Sir, I have a right to say, that 
the sentiments of the Homan Catholics of this country cannot fairly 
be collected from this petition. The petition of the Homan Catholics 
of England, which was laid before the house a few nights ago, was 
signed by seven apostolic vicars. Now, there are eight apostolic 
vicars in this country, and the eighth apostolic vicar, whose name 
was not annexed to that petition, who has disavowed that spirit of 
conciliation which animates his brethren, is the same upon whose in¬ 
tervention the honourable baronet has this night thought proper to 
congratulate the house. That gentleman is the same person, who, 
in 1813, came forward on the eve of the adoption of a measure for the 
relief of the Catholics, and by whose interference that measure was 
abandoned. He has been censured and disowned by the Ca¬ 
tholic board; and the house will judge of the bigoted spirit of a 
man, who could publicly declare, that the day on which Catholic 
emancipation was granted, would be a day of downfall of the Ca¬ 
tholic religion in this country. What is the object of this man ? 
What, but to prevent the possibility of Roman Catholic emancipation 
—to destroy all hopes of conciliation—to keep alive religious dissen¬ 
sion—and render discord and dissatisfaction interminable, by per¬ 
petuating the distinction between Protestants and Catholics. 

Certainly, sir, I never expected a general concurrence; for it 
is visionary to expect the concurrence of bigotry. Bigotry is un¬ 
changeable. I care not whether it be Homan Catholic bigotry 
or Protestant bigotry—its character is the same—its pursuits are 
the same. True to its aim, though besotted in its expectations 
■—steady to its purpose, though blind to its interests, for bigotry time 
flows in vain. It is abandoned by the tides of knowledge—it is left 


THE CATHOLIC BILLS. 


223 


strand 3 d by the waters of reason, and vainly worships the figures 
imprinted on the sand, soon to be washed away. It is inaccessible to 
reason—it is irreclaimable by experience. 


THE CATHOLIC BILLS. 

March 16, 1821. 

The debate on the second reading was then gone into, and Plunket rose to ex¬ 
plain the bills:— 


He said it was not then his intention to trespass at any great 
length on the time of the house; indeed, after the indulgence 
which he had so largely experienced on a former night, it would fur¬ 
nish but a bad specimen of taste to go a second time into a general 
consideration of the question. When he took the liberty of 
opening his views on the question, he had described the measure 
as having for its primary object a great end of public justice. He 
had expressed a hope that it would be favourably regarded by all 
those whose interests it was designed to promote; and he had re¬ 
ceived great pleasure in finding, from all that had passed in the coun¬ 
try with which he was most nearly connected, that his hopes had been 
more than realized ; for he must take leave to say, that he never en¬ 
tertained the chimerical notion of being able to conciliate the appro¬ 
bation of all persons on such a subject. There were persons by whom 
that general satisfaction would be felt as a grievous calamity, who 
prized the religious hostility which they bore to other Christian sects 
and denominations as a valuable inheritance descended to them from 
their ancestors, and which it was incumbent on thSm to leave as a 
legacy to their children. With such persons he Nvould not argue; 
they lived in a territory of their own, wholly inaccessible to any reason¬ 
ing which he could employ. It was however some consolation to 
know that the measure, if carried, could not interrupt their happiness, 
but that they would rise the next morning in possession of as much 
comfort and security as they had ever before enjoyed, and as he hoped, 
—for they were very worthy and respectable persons—they would 
long continue to enjoy. He must take that opportunity also of re¬ 
marking, that he had never applied the term “ bigotry” to th£ great 
body of Protestants with whom he had the misfortune to differ ou 
this subject. Nothing could be more foreign from his disposition; 
and in truth, he felt the utmost degree of deference for sentiments, 


224 


plunket's speeches. 


which, although they appeared to him to originate in prejudice and 
error, might be so regarded by him through his own prejudices and 
errors. Those errors, if they were such, he was ready to yield to the 
force of argument, and to a proof of actual danger arising to the es¬ 
tablishments so justly dear to us, from admitting the Roman Catho¬ 
lics to share in the full advantages of the constitution. 

It had been his endeavour, and that of the distinguished indivi¬ 
duals who were associated with him in the preparation of this bill, 
to proceed with the greatest caution, and to evince a deference tor 
the opinions of those classes to whom he was now alluding. Their 
object was not only to give security against danger, but to satisfy 
every reasonable apprehension. They had felt it to be their duty 
also to defer to the apprehensions and jealousies of the Roman Catho¬ 
lics. It was their wish to reconcile both Protestants and Catholics, 
by not yielding on the one hand what was necessary to the security 
of the establishment, nor demanding on the other what must violate 
the religious scruples of the Roman Catholics. The present state of 
public affairs, and the state also of the public mind, seemed to him 
peculiarly favourable to the success of this important measure. He 
considered that the indifference and apathy spoken of by an honour¬ 
able member, as characteristic of the public mind, proved only that 
the people willingly left the decision of this question to the wisdom 
of their representatives. They were satisfied that nothing would be 
done by parliament to endanger the constitution, and they suppressed 
their own feelings from their confidence in the legislature. The 
time, therefore, was most favourable to a full consideration of those 
claims which had been so often and hitherto so unsuccessfully urged 
on behalf of the Roman Catholics. Without furiher preamble, he 
should proceed to state the substance of the bill, endeavouring only 
to set himself right with the house, as to what had fallen from him 
in the former discussion. He had then asserted, that admission to 
the franchises and offices of the state was the right of every Roman 
Catholic liege subject, and that exclusion from eligibility was incon¬ 
sistent with the first principles of the constitution. In the sense in 
which he had stated, and in which alone he could be supposed to 
have stated it, he now re-asserted that proposition. The right of 
the Roman Catholic was precisely the same as that of the Protes¬ 
tant ; but he never was so absurd as to maintain that that right 
could not be controlled by the exigencies or necessities of the state. If 
ever a clear case were made out to him of expediency arising from 
danger serious enough to countervail a general principle, he would 
say at once that the Roman Catholic must yield to the imperious 


THE CATHOLIC BILLS. 


225 


rule which that expediency would dictate. But whence did the Pro- 
testaut derive his claim to vote at elections, or to hold himself eligi¬ 
ble to sit in parliament ? Not from any written law or charter that 
he had ever met with ; but from the first elements, from the essence 
and the stamina of the constitution. The Roman Catholic complained 
t hat since the reign of Charles the Second he had been subjected to 
certain disabilities. He did not deny the right of parliament to 
impose them, but stated that they were originally designed to be 
temporary, and were enacted in consequence of a suspicion that the 
reigning monarch was not a Protestant. The Roman Catholic 
added, that those circumstances had gone by ; that there no longer 
existed any danger of a Popish king, or of a Popish successor. 
Therefore, he submitted, as the danger had ceased, so ought the re¬ 
strictions which that danger alone had justified. If the Protestant 
could show no overruling necessity for the exclusion of the Catholic, 
could he show any principle by which it was made an essential or 
fundamental part of the constitution ? The Catholic denied it: he 
challenged discussion; he contended that such a proposition was at 
war with the first principles on which that constitution was founded. 

He was the more anxious to set himself right upon this point, be¬ 
cause he had been supposed to argue the case of the Protestant dis¬ 
senter, as well as of the Roman Catholic. But the truth was, that 
each question stood on its own special grounds ; that of the Protes¬ 
tant dissenter was altogether distinct. As regarded the Roman 
Catholic, it was a question of danger between letting him in and 
shutting him out; but the situation of the dissenter was extremely 
different. Perhaps the house would allow him to explain the actual 
state of the Protestant dissenter in Ireland, as he believed the public 
was in general ignorant of it. The Protestant dissenter was not 
then subject to any test in Ireland, nor had he been for the last 
forty years. An act passed in the year 1780 exempted him from 
the operation of the Test Act; the exclusion of the Roman Catholic 
did not, therefore, involve the Protestant dissenter. As he was now 
on this subject, he could wish to put the house in possession of a 
curious fact. The act of 1780 relieved the Protestants from the 
sacramental test; the words were distinct and positive, that from 
and after the passing of the act the Protestants should not be bound 
by the sacramental test. In 1793, an act passed to relieve the 
Roman Catholics t and it went on to state, that the Roman Catho¬ 
lics should be subject to no other disqualification or disability in this 
respect than those to which the Protestants were liable. Some per¬ 
sons, however, thought that the Protestants of the Established Church 


226 


plunket’s speeches. 


were not included, and that the act exempting from the sacramental 
test did not apply to them; and as some doubts and difficulties 
arose in consequence with regard to the Catholics, a statute passed 
the Irish House of Commons to explain the act of 1780, and to 
exempt the Protestants of the Established Church. It was sent up 
to the House of Lords, and there, on consulting the journals, it ap¬ 
peared that it had been read with unexampled celerity three times 
in one day; that an amendment by the insertion of the simple word 
not was introduced, in fact negativing the whole object of the mea¬ 
sure ; and that being returned to the Commons, it passed in that 
shape unanimously. Under the operation of the law thus explained, 
the Homan Catholic in Ireland was therefore still liable to the sacra¬ 
mental test. He had thought it right to put the house in possession 
of this fact, to show how what had been meant here as a piece of 
justice, grace, and favour to the Catholics was marred in Ireland, 
by trick, artifice, and management. 

He would now proceed to state particularly the nature of the bill, 
as framed by the committee on the resolutions of the house. The 
bill for removing disqualifications comprised two distinct objects. 
First, the disqualification by reason of the oath of supremacy; and 
secondly, the disqualification by reason of the declaration of tran- 
substantiation. As to the last, he need not long occupy the time of 
the house ; for he had never heard any man, whether clerical or lay, 
contend for the propriety of that declaration ; it was justly consi¬ 
dered injurious to the best interests of Christianity, and incapable of 
affording any real benefit or security. Though it contained several 
points besides transubstantiation, such as the invocation of saints and 
the sacrifice of the mass, yet it formed but a small portion of the 
faith of the Roman Catholics ; and if in the progress of investigation, 
or in the course of time, those points were to be changed, there 
would still remain the doctriues of purgatory, the sacraments, and 
auricular confession. It was also imperfect in this respect; for if 
the object were to exclude the Roman Catholics, it did not effect 
that object. A man might subscribe this declaration for his conve¬ 
nience, and yet continue a Papist; and therefore it was not the sort; 
of security the house ought to have. A Roman Catholic might say, 

“ I choose to sacrifice to my interest the strictness of my religion, 
and become a member of parliament. If this were discovered, it 
would be the duty of the house to expel such an individual. And 
why ? Because he had sacrificed his religion, because he had com¬ 
plied with the strictness of the penal laws of the Protestants, which 
tempted men to set the desire ot the honours of the state above the 


THE CATHOLIC BILLS. 227 

clear dictates of conscience. On this account he stated, that the law 
carried on the face of it the marks of haste and imperfection. 

He would now pass without further remark to that part of the bill 
that related to the oath of supremacy. It had struck him to-night 
with some degree of surprise to find that the right rev. gentleman 
who presided over the Catholics in the midland district of this 
country had taken upon himself to say that the explanation or mo¬ 
dification of the oath of supremacy in the intended bill was inconsis¬ 
tent with the doctrines of the Roman Catholics; because, if any 
point could be established by undeniable documents anterior to the 
Reformation itself, it was, that the condition of the complete and 
absolute dominion of the king of these realms, as to all civil and 
religious rights, was perfectly reconcileable with the doctrines of 
Catholicism. He would state one or two facts upon this subject. 
Before the Reformation, the great body of the acts was passed by a 
Roman Catholic parliament, and the exclusion of the see of Rome 
from interfering with the political concerns of the kingdom was per¬ 
fect before one of the doctrines was changed in it. In the time of 
Henry VIII., any one who would have been hanged as a traitor for 
decrying the authority of the king would have been burned as a 
heretic for impugning the doctrine of transubstantiation. When the 
statute of Philip and Mary, which restored all the Roman Catholic 
doctrines, passed, it contained in itself an express saving of all the 
acts prior to the 28th Henry VIII. He next caute to the proceed¬ 
ings of Queen Elizabeth ; and he had already noticed her admoni¬ 
tion published at the beginning of her reign, and the accompanying 
admonition and injunction afterwards incorporated in the act passed 
in her fifth year. He begged to recal the attention of the house to 
tne precise words of the queen’s admonition : they were these:—* 
“ For certainly her majesty neither doth nor ever will challenge any 
authority other than that was challenged and lately used by the said 
noble kings of famous memory, King Henry VIII. and King Edward 
VI., which is and was of ancient time due to the imperial crown of 
this realm ; that is, under God, to have the sovereignty and rule 
over all manner of persons born within these her realms, dominions, 
and countries, of what estate, either ecclesiastical or civil, soever 
they be; so as no other foreign power shall or ought to have any 
superiority over them. And if any person that hath conceived any 
other sense of the said oath shall accept the same oath with this in¬ 
terpretation, sense, and meaning, her majesty is well pleased to 
accept every such in that behalf as her good and obedient subjects, 
and shall acquit them of all manner of penalties contained in the said 


228 


PLUNKETS speeches. 


act against such as shall peremptorily and obstinately refuse to take 
the same oath.” Thus, what the vicar of the midland district denied 
was expressly stated. The honourable gentleman, in further con¬ 
firmation, read the opinion and explanation given by Bishop Burnet 
upon the subject, which showed the policy of the queen, and the 
obstacles that stood in the way of what she desired to accomplish. 
The only other point on which he would trouble the house was that 
of supremacy, which was fully explained in the 37th article of our 
church :—“ The king’s majesty hath the chief power in this realm 
of England and other his dominions ; unto whom the chief govern¬ 
ment of all estates of this realm, whether they be ecclesiastical or 
civil, in all causes doth appertain; and is not, nor ought to be, sub¬ 
ject to any foreign jurisdiction.” There was not a word in the whole 
of it which the Catholics were not ready to adopt. It proceeded: 
“ Where we attribute to the king’s majesty the chief government, 
by which titles we understand the minds of some slanderous folks to 
be offended, we give not to our princes the ministering either of 
God’s word or of the sacraments ; the which things the injunctions 
also lately set forth by Elizabeth our queen do most plainly testify; 
but that only prerogative which we see to have been given alw ays 
to all godly princes in Holy Scriptures by God himself—that is, 
that they should rule all states and degrees committed to their charge 
by God, whether they be ecclesiastical or temporal, and restrain with 
the civil sword the stubborn and evil doers.” Such were the terms 
of the articles—such the terms of the admonition—and such the 
terms of the act of parliament in which it was incorporated; and 
after all this, it was really too much to say, that in putting this in¬ 
terpretation on the word, the framers of the bill were at war with 
the principles of the Reformation. 

He now begged permission to read the terms in which the ex¬ 
planation of this oath had been framed in the bill upon the table. 
They were the following :— 

“ And whereas by certain acts passed in the parliaments of Great 
Britain and Ireland, the oaths of abjuration, allegiance, and supre¬ 
macy, therein provided, are required to be taken for certain purposes 
therein mentioned; and the said oath of supremacy is expressed in 
the following terms:—‘ I, A.B., do swear, that I do from my heart 
detest and abjure, as impious and heretical, that damnable doctrine 
and position, that princes excommunicated or deprived by the Pope, 
or any authority of the see of Rome, may be deposed or murdered 
by their subjects or any other whatsoever; and I do declare that no 
foreign prince, prelate, state, or potentate hath, or ought to have, any 



THE CATHOLIC bills. 


229 


jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority ecclesias¬ 
tical or spiritual within this realm. So help me God/ 

“ And whereas his majesty’s Roman Catholic subjects in Great 
Britain and Ireland have been at all times ready and desirous to 
take the said oath of allegiance in common with his majesty’s other 
subjects, but entertain scruples with respect to taking the oath of 
supremacy, so far as the same might be construed to import a dis¬ 
claimer of the spiritual authority of the Pope or Church of Rome in 
matters of religious belief. 

44 And whereas it appears from the admonition annexed to the 
injunctions of her majesty Queen Elizabeth, published in the first year 
of her majesty’s reign, and sanctioned by the act passed in the fifth 
year of her reign, entitled, 4 An act for the assurance of the queen’s 
regal powers over all estates and subjects within her dominions,’ that 
such disclaimer was originally meant only to extend to any such ac¬ 
knowledgment of foreign jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-emi¬ 
nence, or authority as is or could be incompatible with the civil duty 
and allegiance which is due to his majesty and successors from all 
his subjects.” 

Here he proposed to introduce an amendment by the insertion of 
the following words :— 44 or with the civil duty and obedience which 
are due to his courts, civil and ecclesiastical, in all matters affecting 
the legal rights of his majesty’s subjects.” He had added these 
words to meet the doubts aud accommodate the fears of all parties. 
Neither he nor the honourable friends whose assistance he had had 
in framing the bill, were tenacious of words. All he entreated was 
this—that no gentleman would look at this bill with the eye of a 
metaphysician, a casuist, or a critic; but with the plain good sense 
that the subject demanded, in order to see whether the distinction 
was not plainly marked between what was merely conscientious and 
what was an interference with the rights and powers of the king. 
Coming to the clause relating to the declaration against transubstan- 
tion, he proposed to strike out the words 44 and may therefore pro¬ 
perly and safely be abrogated,” and insert the following— 44 as a 
qualification to enable his majesty’s subjects to take, hold, or enjoy 
any civil right, office, or franchise.” The house was aware that by 
the disabling code, the Catholics were shut out from the inheritance 
of landed property, but certain relaxing statutes removed the disa¬ 
bility on the taking of the prescribed oaths of abjuration, allegiance, 
and supremacy. If the words as they now stood were adopted, they 
could succeed without any such oaths; and if he were to act accord¬ 
ing to his own views, he should abolish all distinctions between the 


t 


230 


plunket’s speeches. 


Catholics and Protestants, but still he thought that so important a 
change of the law ought not to be effected indirectly. He did not 
know that all the Roman Catholics would adopt the construction put 
in the bill upon the oath of supremacy; the greater number were 
unquestionably ready to do so, but he could not answer for the scru¬ 
pulousness of some nice consciences. A few might complain that they 
had received an injury from this bill—that at present they could suc¬ 
ceed to landed property on taking certain oaths, with a certain inter¬ 
pretation which they could allow; but that their conscience would 
not permit them to take the oaths with the interpretation now an¬ 
nexed. To avoid this objection, he had framed a separate clause 
which gave the Roman Catholic the opportunity, at the time the oaths 
were administered, of stating the interpretation he gave to the oath 
of supremacy. It appeared to him most desirable that there should 
be no division or separation of oaths ; nothing to make the Catholic 
separate or distinct from the Protestant, but that as much uniformity 
as possible should be introduced. It might be desirable not to part 
with oaths, to the continuance of which the great body of the Catholics 
had no objection. With reference to this part of the subject, he must 
say that he thought the oath a question of theoretical discussion. It 
could be considered and discussed in the committee, and it would be 
very easy, if then there should appear an imperative necessity for 
continuing this oath, to engraft it upon the bill. 

Having stated what was the general scope of his bill, he now 
came to the exceptions which it contained. It provided, in the way 
of exception, as follows :—“ That nothing herein contained shall 
extend, or be construed to extend, to enable any person, being a 
Roman Catholic, to hold and enjoy the office of lord high chancellor, 
lord keeper, or lord commissioner of the great seal of Great Britain, 
or of lord lieutenant or lord deputy, or other the chief governor or 
governors of Ireland.” The exceptions in the bill went no farther 
than these offices. It would be open for any honourable member 
to propose other exceptions if he thought proper; but the reason he 
felt these enough was, because he was quite satisfied with the pro¬ 
priety of admitting the Catholics to possess eligibility to all other 
offices. These offices were essentially vested in the choice of the 
crown, and he saw little necessity for apprehending that the 
Catholics would ever look up to them. He was aware that a right 
honourable gentleman opposite (Sir W. Scott), and others who 
thought with him, were decidedly hostile to admitting Catholics to 
an eligibility to seats upon the bench. He felt peculiar respect for 
those who conscientiously differed from him, but he really thought 


t 


THE CATHOLIC BILLS. 


231 


the right honourable gentleman’s argument in support of his objec¬ 
tion quite insufficient. The right honourable gentleman candidly 
admitted that, if Catholics were elevated to the bench, he did not 
mean«fo insinuate that, in their general administration of justice, 
they would act unbecomingly ; but his apprehension was, that if a 
question arose upon any subject connected with religious feeling be¬ 
tween a Protestant and a Catholic, the Catholic judge must neces¬ 
sarily lean to the interest of his own religious persuasion, and against 
that of the Protestant. He begged the right honourable gentleman 
to consider the consequences of his argument, and to what a danger¬ 
ous extent it might be carried. If the Protestant were justified in 
raising this inference on account of the naturally religious partiality 
of the judge, what must be the feeling of the Catholic when his 
rights are at stake, from the Protestaut judge sitting alone, without 
the assistance of a judge of another religious community ? But this 
inference could never be maintained ; the apprehension was perfectly 
groundless. Away with such unworthy distrust! It went at once 
to dash the cup ot conciliation from the lips of the Catholic, and to 
bereave him of his just hopes. He was satisfied no Catholic had 
the least idea that he did not receive the fullest justice from the 
judges on the bench. The Catholics had the most perfect confidence 
in them ; and he entreated that Protestants would view with the 
same just and liberal feeling the acts of their Catholic fellow-sub¬ 
jects in whatever situation they might happen to be placed. With 
respect to the two universities of Oxford and Cambridge, the bill 
provided that all their existing institutions should remain in exactly 
the same situation in which they stood at present. The test laws 
were left as they stood, and liable only to the operation of the annual 
indemnity bill. 

He would now come to the second bill, the title of which was, 
“ To regulate the intercourse between persons in holy orders, pro¬ 
fessing the Roman Catholic religion, with the see of Rome.” It set 
out with stating, that it is fit to regulate the intercourse and corres¬ 
pondence between the subjects of this realm and the see of Rome. 
It states that, “ whereas it is expedient that such precautions should 
be taken in respect to persons in holy orders professing the R man 
Catholic religion, who may at any time hereafter be elected, nomi¬ 
nated, or appointed to the exercise or discharge of episcopal duties, 
or functions of a dean, in the said church, within any part of the 
United Kingdom, as that no such person shall at any time hereafter 
assume the exercise or discharge of any such duties or functions 
within the United Kingdom, or any part thereof, whose loyalty and 


232 


plunket’s speeches. 


peaceable conduct shall not have been previously ascertained to the 
satisfaction of his majesty, his heirs, or successors.” On the sub¬ 
ject of the intercourse between the Catholic clergy and the see of 
Home, he was entitled to assert that it had long been carried on 
merely for spiritual purposes, and that in no single instance was it 
found to have been carried on for any factious or party purposes. 
With respect to the appointment of the Roman Catholic bishops by 
the Pope, the nomination was formally made in that manner, but to 
all intents and purposes not practically. In no instance did the 
Pope, in point of fact, practically exercise this right: so that in 
making any provision respecting the appointment of the Catholic 
bishops by the Pope, he was providing a theoretical remedy against a 
theoretical danger. Although there was no practical evil to be guarded 
against, there was yet that sort of apprehension upon which the 
Protestant mind had a right to be satisfied. As to the actual nomi¬ 
nation of the Catholic bishops in Ireland, there had been a series of 
disputes and a variety of claims. It was first among the Catholics 
contended, that the bishops of the province should elect one to fill 
the vacant see ; then, that the dean and chapter should; and, lastly, 
the parish priests put in a claim to the right of election. But, in 
all these instances, the nomination by the Pope was practically ex¬ 
cluded. The Pope had, therefore, practically as little to do with 
originating the nomination of the Catholic bishops in Ireland as he 
had with the nomination of the Protestant bishops in England. 
But to give satisfaction to particular scruples, he had introduced this 
proviso into his bill, however practically unnecessary ; and it stipu¬ 
lated that an oath in the following terms should be taken by every 
Roman Catholic individual who was initiated as a clergyman into 
holy orders, for the purpose of satisfying the state that their inter¬ 
course with the see of Rome should be confined exclusively to eccle¬ 
siastical matters. The proposed oath was as follows : 

“ I, A. B., do swear that I will never concur in or consent to the 
appointment or consecration of any Roman Catholic bishop, or dean, 
or vicar apostolic, in the Roman CatholiG church in the United King¬ 
dom, but such as I shall conscientiously deem to be of unimpeachable 
loyalty and peaceable conduct; and I do swear that I have not and 
will not have any correspondence or communication with the Pope 
or see of Rome, or with any court or tribunal established or to be 
established by the Pope or see of Rome, or by the authority of the 
same, or with any person or persons authorized or pretending to be 
authorized by the Pope or see of Rome, tending directly or indirectly 
to overthrow or disturb the Protestant government, or the Protestant 


THE CATHOLIC BILLS. 


233 


church of Great Britain and Ireland, or the Protestant church of 
Scotland, as by law established ; and that I will not correspond or 
communicate with the Pope or see of Rome, or with any tribunal 
established or to be established by the Pope or see of Rome, or by 
the authority of the same, or with any person or persons authorized 
or pretending to be authorized by the Pope or see of Rome, or with 
any other foreign ecclesiastical authority, on any matter or thing 
which may interfere with or affect the civil duty and allegiance which 
is due to his majesty, his heirs, and successors, from all his subjects.” 

He would not say that this bill was likely to receive the unquali¬ 
fied assent of the Roman Catholics at large: that it would be at once 
received as a popular or favourable measure ; but he did think and 
expect that it would be gratefully received by the great majority of 
the Catholic clergy and laity. He begged to assure the right ho¬ 
nourable gentleman (Mr. Peel) that if he referred to the resolutions 
of the Catholic clergy in 1813, as indicative of their permanent opi¬ 
nion or wishes upon the subject of a legislative measure for their re¬ 
lief, he greatly deceived himself. Their declaration in 1813 was not 
that the bishops would not give the crown a voice in the nomination 
of their body, but that they could not then grant it without incurring 
schism, until they received the consent of the Pope. So far only 
went the resolutions of the Catholic prelates in 1813. The case 
was altered since; for the Catholic clergy of Ireland had had an 
opportunity of communicating upon the subject with the Pope, who 
had given his consent to the arrangement, and had declared that he 
saw nothing in it inconsistent with the principles of his church. The 
Catholic prelates had received this opinion of the Pope : they had 
pronounced no expression of disapprobation thereon. The right 
honourable gentleman did not put the point fairly, when he declared 
that he wanted the bishops’ approval of the bill of 1813. To expect 
this public expression of approbation was neither just to the Catho¬ 
lic clergy nor respectful to the legislature. Was it right that the 
legislature, before it enacted a measure which it conceived founded 
in justice and necessity, should canvass about for the opinions of 
particular individuals upon the specific measure ? If any measure 
were in it3 accomplishment calculated to sow discord among a large 
portion of the people, it would be wrong to press it. But, was it 
right to call upou the bishops, in the first instance, for a public 
avowal of their sentiments, where no reason existed for supposing that 
they entertained a contrary opinion ? It hud been said that although 
the Pope was desirous for the veto, the great majority of Catholics 
were against it, Tnis certainly showed how groundless were the 


234 


plunket’s speeches. 


fears of those who apprehended so much mischief from the direct 
influence of the Pope upon the Catholics; for they, it seemed, were 
generally determined to have an opinion of their own, notwithstand¬ 
ing the power of the Pope. For his own part he believed the mea¬ 
sure would be very palatable, and that the people would gladly receive 
what parliament was, he trusted, disposed liberally to grant. When 
the measure was before parliament, he had expressed his opinion in 
favour of domestic nomination. But in framing the bill he knew not 
how to arrange it for domestic nomination; for he could not find that 
the Catholics had any definitively fixed system of domestic nomina¬ 
tion among themseives. It was therefore impossible to fix one upon 
them without unjustifiably obtruding upon them laws for the internal 
regulation of their own ecclesiastical regulations. 

He owed it also to the house to state the reason why he did not, 
as in the bill of 1813, consolidate the ecclesiastical and civil arrange¬ 
ments of the question, and why he preferred that they should be kept 
distinct, and made the subject of two specific bills. The one bill did not 
necessarily arise out of the other, as cause and effect; for the Catholic 
layman was entitled to his civil rights, without any connexion with the 
ecclesiastical rules of his communion. When he drew this distinction 
he admitted the propriety of their legislating upon both points at the 
same time. They were now, he hoped, going to put his majesty’s 
Roman Catholics upon the same footing as the rest of the people, 
and to put an end for ever to these impolitic and jealous distinctions. 
When performing this great work he thought it expedient to embrace 
the whole of the question in one comprehensive view, and to legis¬ 
late for it at once. They were, in doing so, justified in guarding 
against the possible abuse of the control of a foreign potentate over 
a clergy in the dominions of another sovereign who had naturally 
considerable influence over the subjects of that prince. He still 
thought it right that the ecclesiastical parts of the measure should be 
separated from those which were purely belonging to the laity. He 
had also another reason. The clergy might feel disposed to assist 
in carrying the ecclesiastical arrangements into effect, and yet might 
not wish to do so at the actual time when the particular question of 
the laity was at issue :—that is, they might have some delicacy in 
seeing the two matters mixed up together, lest the one should appear 
like a compromise or a barter for the other. When he stated this 
necessity for keeping the bills separate, he claimed credit from the 
house when he said, that both he and the gentlemen who had assisted 
him in preparing the bill were perfectly ready to admit that, if the 
first bill were passed, the second must go on. Indeed, if the first 


THE CATHOLIC BILLS. 


235 


bill went in its present shape through a committee, he was ready to 
say that there might arise no objection to the consolidation of the 
two bills in the committee. Of course he made this observation 
with reference to tbe event of the main principles of the first bill 
being adopted. The bill he proposed consisted of various parts; 
it might have been granted in toto , or in part. It might be either 
in a small or in a great part conceded. If only in a trifling part 
(which he could not possibly anticipate), the concession might not 
justify them in calling upon the Catholics for these ecclesiastical 
arrangements. A case might arise—he hoped it was very unlikely— 
that the first bill should pass in such a shape as to be stripped of those 
inducements upon which the concessions were grounded and justified. 
Suppose, for instance, the house should decide upon merely granting 
tbe English Catholics the same privileges which the Irish had long 
enjoyed, that concession to the English would be no boon to the Irish 
Catholic, and would not justify the legislature in exacting conditions 
from him, where it conferred no advantage. The Irish Catholic 
would gain nothing by the alteration, and ought certainly, in such 
au event, not to be called upon for any alteration of ecclesiastical 
arrangements. It was therefore desirable that the house should, in 
tiie first instance, proceed with two bills, and when in the committee 
it would be time enough to consider how far it would be proper to 
consolidate their principles. 

An honourable gentleman (Mr. Croker) had suggested that it would 
be right to propose a provision for the Roman Catholic clergy. He 
could not concur with the honourable gentleman in the expediency 
of pressing his suggestion at the present moment. When the prin¬ 
ciples of the present bills were admitted and acted upon, then such a 
suggestion might be made with propriety, and, he doubted not, with 
success. The present time was, however, quite unsuitable for its intro¬ 
duction. The clergy would look at it as if it were a treaty into which 
tiiey were called upon to enter as a condition for securing to the laity 
their civil rights. Indeed, he doubted the competency of any mem¬ 
ber to bring it forward without the concurrence of his majesty’s ad¬ 
visers. The moment was favourable for enabling the crown to derive 
whatever popularity might attach from a boon to the clergy. When 
Queen- Elizabeth manifested a desire to extend the liberality of her 
toleration, she was thwarted by the foreign measures in which she 
was compelled to embark. Such was the state of things up to the 
time of the revolution; and, unfortunately, after that event, the 
measures of the Pretender continued to assume such a character, as 
prevented liberal sovereigns from acting upon their own feelings to- 



236 


plunket’s speeches. 


wards the Catholics. Ireland during the same length of time was 
still more unfavourably circumstanced; for, before the Euglish pos¬ 
sessed Ireland, a pure religion, considering the state of the times, 
was professed in that country, and Popery was introduced there by 
the English, and made to supplant the form of religion which had 
preceded it. Ireland, he repeated, became essentially Popish by the 
act and effort of England. It was not till the revolution that the 
Catholics of Ireland were in a settled state in the country. In Eng¬ 
land there have been two rebellions and one insurrection since that 
period, and yet the Catholics of Ireland have been uniformly tranquil; 
and upon that proof of their allegiance they ground their claim for 
a removal of those disabilities which are now prolonged against 
them. It is the uniform tenor of this conduct which justifies the 
proviso of the bill. 

Can the rebellion in 1798 justly be called a Catholic one? Did 
it not originate among Protestants ? Were not the leaders in it 
Protestants? Was it not commenced amongst the Protestant popu¬ 
lation of the north of Ireland, while, at the same time, the Catholic 
population of the south of Ireland remained tranquil ? Did it not 
appear, that when the French invasion took place in 1796, there 
was not a single rebellious organization of men in the whole southern 
population, from Dublin to Cork ? Not a single Catholic in that 
extensive province ? It was the uniform tenor of this conduct which 
justified the recital in the bill which he had brought into the house—t 
■ ‘ that after the due consideration of the situation, dispositions, and 
conduct of his majesty’s Roman Catholic subjects, it appeared just 
and fitting to communicate to them the full enjoyment of the bene¬ 
fits and advantages of the constitution and government happily 
established in this United Kingdomthus putting an end to reli¬ 
gious jealousies, consolidating the union between Great Britain and 
Ireland, and uniting and knitting together the hearts of all his ma¬ 
jesty’s subjects in one and the same interest, for the support of his 
majesty’s person, family, crown, and government, and for the de¬ 
fence of their common rights and liberties. 

I have now trespassed longer upon the time of the house than 
I had at first intended, in submitting to them the details of 
the two bills. I implore the house to adopt them; to conci¬ 
liate that kind-hearted, enthusiastic, and loyal people; to enable 
the throne, at the moment when happily it might do so with 
safety and advantage to the state, to confer the high and 
generous privileges, which belonged to the free subjects of a free 
government, upon the Roman Catholics of this realm—to en- 


THE CATHOLIC BILLS. 


237 


able the monarch to enjoy the highest gratification of which his en¬ 
lightened mind can be susceptible; namely—the gratification of 
seeing the hearts of his subjects throb with gratitude for his gracious 
acts, and approach his throne ready to shed the last drop of their 
blood, and to spend the last shilling of their treasure,, in support of 
those laws and that constitution, in the whole benefits of which they 
were now allowed to participate. 

He then moved the order of the day for the second reading of the Roman 
Catholic Disabilities Removal Bill, and the speaker put the question that, 
‘‘ the bill be now read a second time.” After a short silence, Mr. Bankes 
opposed the motion by a long, a temperate, and an argumentative speech: his 
objections to it were, that it would not satisfy the Catholics, and would endan¬ 
ger the Protestant ascendancy. Mr. Wilberforce replied to him. 

“ Of those who advocated the bill in this stage of it,” says Charles Butler, 
“ the voice of none was more grateful to the Catholics, or heard by the house 
with greater attention and respect, than that of Mr. Wilberforce. The high 
opinion entertained universally of his ability, integrity, and beneficence, and 
the reputation which he has deservedly acquired by his successful exertions for 
the abolition of the slave trade—the greatest triumph obtained in our times in 
the cause of humanity—have endeared him to the public, and rendered his 
patronage of any cause of incalculable value. His mild and persuasive elo¬ 
quence was exerted in this, as it is on every other occasion in behalf of the 
aggrieved. ‘When I see, 7 said this excellent person, * Roman Catholics pos¬ 
sessed of intelligence, rank, and property, how can I but wish to see them fur¬ 
nished with the means of using that intelligence, holding that rank, and enjoy¬ 
ing that property, in a manner which, wdiile it best conduces to their own hap¬ 
piness, will most contribute to the welfare of their country. Their disabilities 
are the relics of a long course of oppression. They are not restrictions ; they 
are a degradation : to continue them is making them wear a prison-suit, after 
they are left to go at large. Is it in the order of things, is it reasonably to be 
anticipated,, that a great, a high-minded, a gallant people, when treated with 
kindness, should not feel, should not be sensible of that kindness?—should not 

be grateful for it?_should not serve with fidelity and zeal those from whom 

they had received it ?’ Mr. Wilberforce concluded by stating, that ‘ with what¬ 
ever apprehension he approached the subject, a feeling with which, from his 
sense of its importance, he was deeply impressed, a feeling which, from his 
heart, he did certainly entertain ;—(for there were many who knew with what 
tenderness and caution he had at length come to a conclusion, which was some¬ 
what in contrariety to that which he had formerly entertained on the matter),— 
vet, after hearing much, and reflecting much, he then thought that the object 
of the motion before the house was calculated to ensure the ultimate security of 
2 he country.’ This explicit declaration in favour of the bill, by a niember so 
greatly loved and venerated, could not but recommend it to every part of the 

house. ” , , 

Mr. Wilberforce was followed by Mr. Bragge Bathurst, who moved, as an 
amendment, that “ the bill should be read a second time that day six months ” 
Ibis Sir James Mackintosh opposed in a speech, not of much length, but of 
great power. Mr. Peel followed him. He admitted that excluding Catholics 
from high office and power was both an evil to them and an evil to the state f 

9 


238 


plunket’s speeches. 


but contended that doing away the exclusion would be a greater evil than con* 
tinuing it. Mr. Canning replied to Mr. Peel, and the house finally divided— 
for the original question, 254 ; against it, 243: so that there was a majority of 
11 for the second reading of the bill. 


THE STATE OF IRELAND. 

April 22, 1822. 

This session again, Sir John Newport brought forward a motion to inquire into 
the state of Ireland, in a speech manly, vivid, and statesmanlike. The historian 
of this period will find no documents that throw such light upon the condition 
of the Irish people as the speeches of this model Irish member. The reader will 
remember that Plunket suported his former motion on the subject, and Sir John 
early expressed his regret that on this occasion the motion would no longer be 
benefitted by his right honourable and learned friend’s assistance. Plunket 
spoke late in the debate, and shortly after a bigoted rigmarole from Master 
Ellis, of the Court of Chancery, the successful rival of young Henry Grattan for 
the representation of Dublin:— 

Mr. Plunket said, Ire would not at that late hour trespass long on 
the time of the house, and iu a few remarks he had to make on the 
motion of his right honourable friend, he should confine himself strictly 
to the main question. The house might feel assured that it was far 
from his intention to follow the honourable and learned gentleman 
who spoke last, through the details of his disgusting attack upon the 
population of that country which had returned him to parliament. 
He owned, that when the honourable and learned member was first 
about to desert the duty which belonged to him in the Irish court of 
chancery, in order that he might devote his attention to parliamen¬ 
tary duties, he (Mr. P.) felt very great regret; but he now withdrew 
from the bottom of his heart, every regret on that account, and re¬ 
joiced that the honourable and learned gentleman had had an oppor¬ 
tunity of displaying to the British parliament, and in the face of the 
whole country, the tone, and temper, and manner, which had long 
distinguished the treatment received by the great body of the people 
of Ireland from those who ought to be the advocates of their rights. 
It was often asked, in a tone of triumph, by the enemies of the 
Catholics, “Why are you not satisfied with the boon granted to you? 
Why are you not content with the concessions you have received ?’ ? 

> Die reason was, because concession had been followed in every stage, 
by the curse and malediction of those bigots, whose prejudices neither 
>ime nor ..circumstances could remove—who, like au unwholesonw 


THE STATE OF IRELAND. 


239 


blight, like a destructive mildew, intercepted every ray of royal 
favour, or of legislative beneficence. He was free from alarm as to 
any argument which the honourable and learned gentleman might 
please to bring forward, but argument he adduced not. The honour¬ 
able aud learned gentleman relied upon what he denominated facts i 
And those facts would, in all probability, produce a very different 
effect from that which the honourable and learned gentleman had 
anticipated. The honourable and learned gentleman had spoken of 
transactions with respect to the disturbances that now prevailed in 
Ireland, and he (Mr. P.) must say, as he had been an eye-witness of 
those transactions, that if any part of the statements of the honour¬ 
able and learned gentleman were literally true, in spirit and in appli¬ 
cation to the question they were totally and absolutely false. The 
truth was, that the insurrectionary movements in Ireland were con¬ 
fined entirely to certain districts of the south. Limerick, Cork, 
Kerry, and a part of Tipperary, were in a state of disturbance. The 
entire population, speaking of the lower classes of the people in those 
/ districts, were Roman Catholics. It was a well-known fact that the 
disturbances were confined to the lower orders, and did not extend 
beyond them ; but, overlooking this fact, the honourable and learned 
gentleman had traced the disturbances to a religious feeling—those 
who were engaged in them being the dregs of the people, and all the 
lower classes professing the Catholic faith. The object of those in¬ 
surrectionary movements was, in fact, to level the property of the 
country; and, in the pursuit of that object, the unfortunate persons 
who were engaged in this design directed their efforts against both 
Protestants and Roman Catholics. The respectable Catholics were 
as much exposed as the Protestants to their depredations, and they 
exerted themselves with the same zeal and energy in repressing those 
disturbances, as the members of the Established Church did. When, 
as public prosecutor, the painful task of bringing* some of those mis¬ 
guided men to punishment devolved on him, the direction he gave to 
the persons who were to empannel the juries was, that no distinction 
should be made, in admitting Protestants and Roman Catholics to 
serve on those juries. They were indiscriminately empannelled; and 
it could not be asserted—it could not be suspected—that the Roman 
Catholics did not perform their duty in every instance. These were 
facts which he positively knew. With respect to the Roman Catho¬ 
lic clergy, he would affirm, that from the highest dignitary of the 
church to the lowest parish priest, they exerted themselves zealously 
and energetically, aud honestly, to put down the spirit of insubordi¬ 
nation. It was not merely a tormal discharge of their duty—it was 


240 plunket’s speeches. 

not merely making declarations from the altar, which as the honour¬ 
able and learned gentleman had said, might be true or untrue—might 
be sincere or hypocritical—no, it was an active interference ; and he 
would assert, that if the lives, if the eternal happiness of the Catho¬ 
lic clergy depended on their exertions, they could not do more to put 
an end to those disturbances than they had done. If these men, 
instead of being zealous opponents of the discontented, had remained 
neutral, and still more, if, as had been insinuated, they had counte¬ 
nanced this—he would not call it contemptible conspiracy, because, 
if not put down in time, it might assume a form that would require 
the whole strength of the country to subdue it—if these men had 
proceeded in a different course from that which they had promptly 
adopted, would not the danger have been infinitely more terrific ? 
The honourable and learned gentleman told them that his great mea¬ 
sure was to put down every symptom of insubordination by force, 
without inquiring into the cause in which it had originated. The 
honourable and learned gentleman would employ 50,000 or 100,000 
men to effect this object. He (Mr. P.) would indeed have been sur¬ 
prised if such a doctrine had not been marked by the indignation of 
the house. For if such a principle were once adopted, the two coun¬ 
tries would be opposed to each other in endless hostility. 

He begged pardon for having been led away from the considera¬ 
tion of the immediate motion before the house, by the observations of 
the honourable and learned gentleman, which had already been suffi¬ 
ciently answered, by the effect they had produced in the mind of 
every person who had heard him on both sides of the house. Thefe 
was one particular transaction, however, which had been mentioned 
by the honourable and learned gentleman, and in which he (Mr. P.) 
was personally concerned, to which he must shortly advert. The 
Roman Catholic priesthood had undoubtedly an opportunity of ex¬ 
erting a most powerful influence on the minds of their flocks; but 
their influence in restraining their flocks from the perpetration of 
crime must depend on their power of preserving the confidence of 
their flocks. It had been well observed by an eminent historian, Dr. 
Robertson, that the influence of the priesthood was most strong 
when united with the discontented portion of the population; but 
that when allied with the government, their influence over the mind? 
of their flocks was proportionally diminished. Subject to this draw* 
back, their influence was undoubtedly strong in restraining from 
the commission of crime ; but if, instead of exerting their influence 
as clergymen, they came forward as witnesses in cases of imputed 
crime, thev would lose the confidence of their flocks, and the govern- 


THE STATE OF IRELAND. 


241 


menfc would consequently lose all the advantages which it now derived 
from their influence and interference in the prevention of outrages, 
in the transaction to which the honourable and learned member had 
alluded, the priest had rescued the unfortunate man from the crowd 
by which he was surrounded, at the extreme hazard of his own 
person, and had succeeded in conveying him to a place of safety. 
After this the party returned, seized upon the priest, and threatened 
him with the loss of life if he did not immediately deliver the man 
into their hands, declaring at the same time that he should receive 
no injury. The unfortunate man was delivered up, and after an 
interval of half an hour he was put to death. The priest did not 
know the persons who actually perpetrated the murder: he did not 
even believe that those who were apprehended were the most guilty 
individuals. Hh knew, it was true, some of the faces of those who 
composed the numerous crowd ; and, though lie did not think that 
those whom he knew, were the individuals who had actually imbrued 
their hands in blood, he was aware that, composing part of a multi¬ 
tude who had committed murder, they were considered as having 
joined in the deed, and were liable to be executed as murderers. 
The priest, therefore, refused to give evidence, or to disclose the 
names of those who were present. He (Mr. P.) was willing to 
admit that a Catholic clergyman could, no more than a Protestant, 
conceal a crime, and that this priest was therefore liable for the con¬ 
sequences of illegal conduct; but in this case he did not think it 
would have been advisable to inflict the punishment. By giving evi¬ 
dence against these persons, the priest not only exposed himself to 
personal danger, perhaps to assassination, but deprived himself of 
all capacity of being employed as an instrument to prevent future 
crimes. Having a choice, therefore, of compelling him to appear 
in the witness-box, and of punishing him if he refused to give evi¬ 
dence, or of employing the confidence which he enjoyed with those 
whose lives would be affected by his testimony to prevent future out¬ 
rages, he (Mr. P.) notwithstanding that by so doing he exposed 
himself to the censures of the honourable and learned gentleman, 
had preferred the latter course, and he now appealed to the house 
from the decision of the honourable and learned gentleman, and 
asked if he was not entitled to their approbation and thanks for 
having so done ? 

He would now address himself to the motion of his right honour¬ 
able friend. His right honourable friend, he was sure, could intend 
uo unkindness towards him by the manner in which he had alluded 
so his conduct in 1816, and stating thai he then joined with him in 


242 


PLUNKET’S SPEECHES. 


a motion similar to the present. Neither could his other honourable 
friend who had so ably supported his views, and who had quoted 
passages from his speech on that occasion. But as every man was 
anxious to maintain his character and to defend his consistency, he 
might be excused for offering some explanation by which his conduct 
ia then supporiing his right honourable friend’s mo'ion was recon¬ 
cilable with his negative vote on the present occasion. The motions, 
then, he would say, were not exactly similar, nor brought forward 
under similar circumstances. On the former occasion, a vote had 
been proposed in the army estimates for 25,000 men, for preserving 
the peace of Ireland, and the motion of his right honourable friend 
was intended to obtain a previous inquiry into the state of the coun¬ 
try, for the purpose of ascertaining whether such a force was neces¬ 
sary ; in the present instance the house had voted the necessary force, 
and had, to arrest existing outrage, conferred additional powers on 
the Irish government. The latter fact was even embodied in the re¬ 
solution now before the house. With respect to the latter part of 
the resolution, which pledged the house to assist his majesty in car¬ 
rying into execution the most beneficial measure for the peace and 
prosperity of Ireland, and was intended to stimulate the government 
to more active exertions in the cause, he could not adopt it without 
declaring by his vote, that government required reproof for its indif¬ 
ference, and consequently did not enjoy its confidence. Now, that 
it enjoyed his confidence was proved by his sitting on that side of 
the house. To those who knew him best he would leave the decision, 
whether he had placed that confidence in the present administration 
because he had joined them, or had joined them because they had ob¬ 
tained his confidence. He believed in his conscience, that govern¬ 
ment was doing all in their power to find a cure for the evils with 
which Ireland was afflicted. His right honourable friend (Mr. C. 
Grant) who had that night spoken with such eloquence, and evinced 
so much statesmanlike talent and views, and who by his speech had 
acquired additional claims to the gratitude of his country, had enu¬ 
merated the causes of the present state of Ireland. Many of these 
causes, it would be obvious, could not be immediately counteracted, and 
many of their effects could not be immediately remedied; but he was 
convinced that the government of that country was sincerely desirous of 
discovering a remedy, and would be zealous in applying it. Everything 
that could be done, he was convinced would be done. With respect 
to the great question of Catholic disabilities, he would at present say 
uothing, although he hoped that it would soon be satisfactorily set- 
tied. The house would recollect that the question last year obtained 


THE STATE OF IRELAND. 


243 


& new position; that a bill had been agreed to in that house, had 
passed through all its stages, and was only lost in another place, 
lie confessed that he, therefore, looked forward with increased con< 
tidence to the final success of that great measure of security, ot 
strength, and of justice; but it was too important a question to be 
mixed up with the discussion of that evening. A part of it would 
shortly come before the house on the intended motion of his right 
honourable friend (Mr. Canning), for the admission of Catholic peers 
into the other house of parliament; and at an early period of the 
next session, as he (Mr. Plunket) had formerly announced, he intended 
to submit the w r hole question to parliament; when he had no doubt 
it would receive that fall, temperate, and satisfactory discussion which 
its momentous consequeuce deserved. 

Among the circumstances which had had a beneficial tendency 
with regard to Ireland, and which, without reference to the success 
of the question to which he had alluded, increased his confidence in 
the future tranquillity of Ireland, was the late visit of his majesty 
to that part of his dominions. That gracious proceeding had been 
undervalued, and viewed with affected indifference, by the various 
descriptions of persons with various objects; but a wiser and more 
beneficial measure, he was convinced, could not have been taken. 
Its importance had been under-rated by those who were averse to 
see any lustre thrown .around the throne, and by the petty factions 
of both sides who distracted that unhappy country; but the great 
body of the people had appreciated the visit as it deserved. His 
majesty had knocked at the hearts of his Irish subjects, and had been 
answered with inexpressible enthusiasm and gratitude. That visit 
had been followed by another measure of conciliation, on which they 
likewise set its proper value—he meant the appointment of the Mar¬ 
quis Wellesley to the government of Ireland. He would not then 
enter into any eulogium on that noble lord, who did not require any 
praises of his; but he should be wanting in that justice which he 
owed to him, if he did not state the wise and impartial views with 
which he entered upon his office—the zeal and vigour with which he 
applied himself to discover a remedy for the existing evils of Ireland, 
and the anxiety which he showed to administer the law, and to put 
down those who rose up against it, in whatever party, and under 
whatever banners, they appeared. He (Mr. Plunket) entertained 
from these and from other circumstances great hopes of approaching 
prosperit}' to Ireland; and he begged leave to say that some of his 
honourable friends had drawn too gloomy a picture of its past con¬ 
dition, when they spoke of an uninterrupted misgovernment of three 



244 


pluneet’s speeches. 


centuries. Within the latter part of this period they might hare 
found many subjects of consolation. The penal laws for religion had 
been within the last forty years entirely repealed; nothing now re¬ 
mained but one great measure of policy and justice that should re¬ 
move all civil disabilities on account of religious faith. It should 
also be recollected that since the year 1782 that country had been 
restored to commerce and to all the commercial rights enjoyed in 
other parts of the empire. These advantages had been followed by 
an Union which placed Ireland on a footing with Great Britain, in 
all other privileges and rights. He had opposed that Union; he 
had done so openly and boldly, nor was he now ashamed of what 
he had done; but though in his resistance to it he had been pre¬ 
pared to go the length of any man, he was now equally prepared to 
do all in his power to render it close and indissoluble. One of the 
apprehensions on which his opposition was founded, he w r as happy to 
say, had been disappointed by the event. He had been afraid that 
the Irish interests, on the abolition of her separate legislature, would 
come to be discussed in a hostile parliament: but he could now 
state, and he wished when he spoke that he could be heard by the 
whole of Ireland, that during the time that he had sat in the united 
parliament, he had found every question that related to the interests 
or security of that country entertained with indulgence, and treated 
with the most deliberate regard. When he considered all these 
things—when he considered the privileges granted and the disabilities 
removed—and when he considered the effects that must result from 
the cordial efforts of a united legislature, he could not entertain 
gloomy ideas on the subject of the future prospects of Ireland. If 
an improved system of police were established in that couutry, and 
if the landed gentry discharged with zeal the duties of their character 
and station, we should soon see a manifest amelioration of the state 
of the sister island, and should find that, instead of being a source 
of weakness and distraction, it would become an arm of security and 
strength to the "whole empire. 

His right honourable friend (Mr. Grant) had adverted to the causes 
of the present state of society in Ireland, under the heads of the tithe 
system, the police, the magistracy, and education; and though he, 
when he rose did not intend to say one word upon them, he would 
now, as he was on his legs, address himself briefly to them. He 
confessed he approached the tithe system with great reserve aud de¬ 
licacy. The legislature had a right to meddle with that property, be¬ 
cause there were no limits to its power; but, on the same principle that 
it could interfere with tithes, it might interfere with any other species 


THE STATE OF IRELAND. 2 15 

of property. As to any forcible diminution of their amount, or com¬ 
pulsory commutation of them, he could never agree to any measure 
for that purpose, nor could parliament, on any just principle, enter¬ 
tain the question for a moment. In opposition to frequent complaints, 
he was of opinion that the clergy of Ireland were not adequately pro¬ 
vided for. They did not receive what they were entitled to demand, 
and the clamour raised against their alleged exactions was most un¬ 
founded and most unjust. He wished to speak with respect of the great 
body of Irish landlords ; but he was compelled to say, that, generally 
in the west and in the south of Ireland, they exacted so much rent 
themselves, that they left little for the tithe of the clergy, and joined 
in the cry of exaction when that little was attempted to be recovered. 
They sometimes let their land at from seven, eight, nine, or ten 
pounds per acre. Whatever the poor occupier could spare beyond 
mere subsistence, the proprietor claimed in the shape of rent, and 
thus left the clergyman, in the recovery of his tithe, to deal with an 
insolvent fund. If the latter surrendered his rights, he was left with¬ 
out an income, and praised for his generosity ; if he exacted them, 
the cry of rapacity was raised against him. In the meantime, the 
poor occupier of the land gained no advantage by the clergyman’s 
forbearance; as what was remitted in tithe was exacted in rent. 
The cry raised against the clergy for their enjoyment of that portion 
of the produce which the law awarded them from the land, always 
appeared to him illiberal and ill-founded. He kuew of no class of 
country gentleman more useful than the clergy, even independent of 
their sacred duties, and none better entitled to the property which 
they enjoyed. They spent their income in the country, in the en¬ 
couragement of industry, as usefully as laymen; they w r ere better 
educated ; they were more capable of directing their inferiors ; and, 
independently of the religious instruction which they conveyed, they 
set a better example of morals and private conduct. But he 
agreed with those who thought that some change might be madi 
with advantage, in the mode of collecting tithes, though he was 
opposed to any measure for compulsory commutation. The subject 
was certainly surrounded with difficulty, but he thought some means 
might be contrived, by which the clergy might be enabled to treat 
with the proprietors instead of the occupiers of land. In this man¬ 
ner an agreement, not amounting to a commutation of tithes, might 
be entered into, by which the clergyman might receive a certain sum 
ibr a certain number of years; and this arrangement might be far¬ 
ther perfected by making the tithe an actual charge upon the land 
into whatever hands it might fall. This would prevent that perpe- 



246 


plunket’s speeches. 

tual recurrence of vexatious pretensions which was now the source 
of so much dissension between the clergyman and the occupier of the 
land, and the effect would be extremely beneficial in another point of 
view. The occupier of land was generally a Roman Catholic, who 
was naturally disinclined to contribute to the support of a religion 
which he did not profess ; but if the transfer which he had just 
alluded to were adopted, the Protestant clergyman would no longer 
have to deal with a Catholic occupier, but with the proprietor, who 
was generally a Protestant. He did not despair of some such mea¬ 
sure being matured so as to be capable of being laid before parlia¬ 
ment. This subject was now under the consideration of wiser heads 
than his ; but he must deprecate the introduction of any measure, 
unless that measure had been precisely limited and ascertained ; for 
he thought the Protestant clergy ought not to be exposed to the con¬ 
sequences of any indefinite arrangement, the exact limits and ex¬ 
tent of which were not known previously to its being made the sub¬ 
ject of deliberation. With regard to the system of police and the 
magistracy of Ireland, he could assure his right honourable friend, that 
those subjects were now occupying the serious attention of his ma¬ 
jesty’s government. The system of education had often received 
the attention of the house, and many measures had been passed with 
regard to it. Whether all the beneficial effects which had been ex^* 
pected had resulted from those measures, he would not pretend to 
say ; but he was sure that the government would readily give its 
attention to any propositions which might be brought forward on the 
subject. He begged pardon for having trespassed so long upon the 
house. Indeed, it was not his intention to have occupied any por¬ 
tion of their attention, had he not felt himself called upon to make 
some counter statement to the evidence of the honourable and learned 
member for Dublin. 


THE BOTTLE RIOT. 

February 3, 1823. 

All the facts concerning this celebrated prosecution are so clearly, fully, and 
consecutively narrated in the speech that it needs no introduction. I quote part 
of Shed's description of the trial:— 

“The grand jury, composed in a great degree of affiliated Orangemen, threw 
out the bills of indictment tendered by the crown against the perpetrators of the 
outrage at the theatre. Mr. Plunket announced his resolution to proceed by 
ex officio information ; and a day was appointed for a trial at bar. The moc* 
anxious suspense awaited its arrival A deep pulsation throbbed through tU 


THE BOTTLE RIOT, 


247 


city. The ordinary occupations of life appeared to be laid aside in the agitating 
expectation of the event which was to set a seal upon the future government of 
Ireland. It engrossed the thoughts and tongues of men, and exercised a pain¬ 
ful monopoly of all their hopes and anticipations. At length the day of trial 
appeared amidst the heaviness of a gray and sombre morning. As soon as the 
doors were opened, one tremendous rush filled in an instant the galleries and 
every avenue of the court. There was not a murmur in the court; but the 
first glance at the auditory would have satisfied you that deep passions ivere 
working there, and could not long be hushed. The signs of this were most ap¬ 
parent in the galleries: You saw it in the scowling brows of the Orange parti¬ 
sans, and few else were there—in the compressed lip—in the roll of ferocious 
confidence with which their eyes went round the scene that reminded them of 
their strength—in the glare of factious recognition with which they greeted the 
accused, and assured them of a triumph. My eye next rested upon the crowded 
benches of the bar. They, too, betrayed a consciousness of being themselves 
upon their trial. Instead of the legal nonchalance with which they usually 
await the coming-on of the most important cause, they now presented a series 
of countenances quivering with political resentment. It was easy to trace 
their emotions in their looks—in the fixed and deadly sneer—in the flush 
of haughty indignation—in the impassioned gestures with which, in whispers 
among themselves, they arraigned the wdiole proceeding, and foretold the dis¬ 
asters it would bring upon the land. The business of the day opened with a 
joke. Mr. Wunket rose ‘ to call the attention of the court to a matter of some 
importance:’ a dead silence prevailed. The attorney-general proceeded with 
much gravity to state, * that he had been anxiously waiting the arrival of his 
colleagues, the solicitor-general and Mr. Serjeant Lefroy ; and that, after a long 
search for them in all directions, it had been just discovered that they were both 
in one of the avenues of the court, firmly wedged in among the populace, with 
a prospect of immediate suffocation, unless their lordships should be pleased to 
interfere in their behalf.’ The political tenets of the two learned sufferers were 
well known ; and the most bigoted Orangeman in the galleries could not refrain 
from a loud giggle at the notion of two such personages writhing under the hor¬ 
rors of a popular embrace. Mr. Plunket’s speech was on a level with his sub- 
ject, but scarcely with himself. The solicitor-general’s was tame and technical 
he felt t'\ much sympathy with Orange principles, and he openly avowed them, 
to prove a formidable denouncer of Orange excesses.” 

My Lords and Gentlemen of the Jury,—It becomes now my duty 
to lay before you the case on behalf of the crown, and to put you in 
possession of the grounds on which the present prosecution has been 
instituted, and of the evidence by which it is intended to be sup¬ 
ported. It has often been my lot, in the eventful history of this 
country, to appear in the character of a public prosecutor, and still 
more frequently to be a witness of the course and conduct of public 
prosecutions. But certainly never in my life have I approached a 
court of justice with sensations of more deep anxiety, or with a more 
intense feeling of the importance of the subject to be decided on, than 
I feel at the present moment. It is & case, my lords and gentlemen, 
not touching the life of the parties; the offence as laid amounting 


248 


plunket’s SPEECHES. 


only to a misdemeanor. It is undoubtedly, howevtr, to them a case 
of no small importance ; involving them, if the facts charged be 
proved, in very heavy penal consequences. But with respect to the 
public at large, it is a case of as deep and vital importance, as for the 
last fifty years has been brought under the consideration of a court 
aud of a jury. It is a great satisfaction to me, and a great part of 
my object has been achieved in knowing, that this case is now ready 
to be brought fully before an intelligent court and jury ; and that 
whatever its merits may be, it is impossible they can be stifled or ex¬ 
tinguished, but must be fairly brought under the consideration of the 
court, the jury, and the public. The charge is one of no light or or¬ 
dinary character. You are already, my lords, probably apprised of 
it from public rumour ; the nature of it has been more particularly 
stated by my learned friend who has opened the informations. It 
imports no less a crime, than having assaulted.the person of the king’s 
representative in this country ; of having committed a riot in his pre¬ 
sence for the purpose of insulting him ; and of having done so in pur¬ 
suance of a deliberate conspiracy previously entered into for the pur¬ 
pose. 

This is a charge which ought not lightly to be made ; and one, 
gentlemen, on which you ought not to act, unless fully and distinctly 
proved. But I should consider it as an insult to your character and 
understandings, to urge any argument to establish the enormity of the 
crime, if fully ascertained to have been committed. I should blush 
for our country, were it necessary to state in a court of justice, that 
a deliberate insult to the king’s representative, in a public theatre, 
the result of a previous conspiracy, is no light or trivial or ordinary 
•offence. In the mind of every man who has not banished the feelings 
of a gentleman, and who is not lost to every public and private con¬ 
sideration, there can be but one sentiment—a deep sense of indignity 
at th3 outrage, and an entire conviction of the necessity of vindicating 
the national character and the dignity of the laws, by affixing pun¬ 
ishment, if deserved. 

But, my lords, daring and unexampled as is the crime, I hesitate 
not to say, that the enormity of the act is lost in the boldness and 
description of the motives. I fairly tell you, that I come not hero 
on the part of Lord Wellesley, to ask for personal redress, or even to 
call for public justice so far as he is personally concerned; not even 
on the part of the lord lieutenant of Ireland, to seek atonement for 
the outrage committed against the king’s representative : but on be¬ 
half of the country and its laws ; on behalf of its hopes of peace and 
safety; to .claim your aid, backed by all the authority of opinion, it? 


TUB BOTTLE RIOT, 


U9 

putting down a desperate and insolent attempt to overawe the king’s 
government in Ireland; and to compel his representative, by the 
arm of personal violence, and by the demonstration of a force above 
the law, to change the measures of his government. I call on you 
to put down a base conspiracy of a contemptible gang, who have as¬ 
sociated to put down the laws and to overbear the king’s represen¬ 
tative, because he has presumed to execute the king’s commands. 
I think I know the feelings of the illustrious personage against whom 
this villany has been directed; with respect to his own personal 
safety, much as it has beeu endangered, the attack was fitted only to 
rouse his gallant mettle;- indignant as he must have felt to be “hawked 
at by such mousing owls” as these; their base attempt excited 
no terror, it left no resentment. That there should have been in 
this land hearts capable of conceiving, and hands capable of execut¬ 
ing, such an outrage against their countryman, must have excited 
sensations of regret and pain; but in this respect the national cha¬ 
racter has been redeemed, by the universal expression of indignation 
which has issued from the hearts of the Irish people. But beyond 
all this, much remains to be done; it is necessary to put down the 
daring pretensions of those who have associated themselves for the 
purpose of defying the king and the law, and setting up an autho¬ 
rity superior to them both. They and all others who announce 
such projects, must be taught that their plans are vain and hopeless 
as they are insolent. 

This I freely avow as my object. I trust that no unworthy pre¬ 
judices, that no angry feeling, that no sentiment other than that 
which belongs to the conscientious discharge of public duty, has 
been suffered to mingle itself in the course of public justice. I shall 
go away from this court humiliated and under the heavy sentence of 
self-reproach if, after the evidence in this case shall have been dis¬ 
closed, any honest or impartial man shall censure me for instituting 
this prosecution ; or shall hesitate to think that it would have been 
a mean abandonment of duty to have shrunk from it. 

You are apprised, by lords, that this is an ex officio information 
filed by his majesty’s attorney-general upon his own authority ; you- 
we also probably aware that this ex officio .information has been 
filed, after bills had been perferred against the same persons for the' 
same offence, and had been ignored by a grand jury of the country. 
Before I proceed to trouble your lordships with any observation upon 
the exact nature and on the legality of this proceeding, I wish to dis¬ 
embarrass the case of a few topics which may attach to it. In the 
proceeding which I have thought it my duty to institute, though | 


250 


plunket’s speeches. 


have been governed by my strong impression that public justice had 
not been effected, I do not involve in this conclusion any imputation 
on the sheriff who returned the grand jury ; still less on the grand 
jury themselves, who have acted on their oaths in throwing out those 
bills. For the purposes of the present trial, whatever opiuions I 
may entertain on that subject, I have no right to advert to them. 
The sheriff who returned that grand jury is not on his trial, and it 
would be gross injustice to arraign his conduct when he cannot de¬ 
fend it. The grand jury are not on their trials, and it would be in¬ 
justice equally gross to make a charge against them, where they can 
have no opportunity of vindicating themselves; a time may come, 
and an occasion may arise, in which these considerations may be 
proper and necessary ; and most certainly I will not, in that event, 
be found wanting to the discharge of any duty, however painful, 
which may devolve on me. But in the meantime, and with refer¬ 
ence to the present proceeding, I wish distinctly to be understood as 
disclaiming all imputations upon either; I am ready to suppose, for 
the purposes of this trial, that if the parties and the cause were the 
exact reverse of what they now are ; that if it had been the plea¬ 
sure of the government to direct that the statue of King William 
should be dressed on the 4th of November, and a body of Roman 
Catholics feeling themselves insulted, had risen against the law and 
the magistracy, and had flung a bottle or other missile at the lord 
lieutenant’s head, and these facts had been before the grand jury, 
they would have ignored the bills; as, so help me God, I would, 
under the same circumstances, had I remained the king’s attorney- 
general, have filed my information ex officio. I claim only for my¬ 
self equal credit for the purity of my motives, and the fair discharge 
of my sworn duty. 

I am told that it has been alleged that this proceeding on the 
part of the attorney-general, by an ex officio information, is illegal. 

I do not know whether what has been said in this respect has been 
rightly reported ; or whether it is meant, that the proceeding is in 
point of law invalid, or that the resorting to it, though a legal right, 
is not a fair exercise of discretion. I am led naturally, without 
going out of the pleadings, to make a few observations upon this 
part of the subject; for although all the traversers have put in pleas 
amounting to not guilty, yet two of them have thought proper to 

put upon the record what cannot properly belong to that plea_a 

sort of preamble or inducement, in which they state that those infor¬ 
mations have been filed against them after a grand jury had ignored 
bills for the same charge. My learned friends, who framed those 


THE BOTTLE RIOT. 


251 


defences, knew perfectly well that on that allegation no issue could 
be joined, either of law or of fact. It amounts, therefore, to nothing 
else than a plea of not guilty. But I presume they thought it might 
be made use of (though scarcely to your lordships or the jury whom 
I address) to swell the cry, ^which amongst the vulgar of the public 
has been raised against the legality of this proceeding. 

I think that on that subject I need occupy but little time in ad¬ 
dressing the court, before which I have now the honour to appear. 
What I am about to say is rather with a view to set right the pub¬ 
lic mind, and that it should be known that I have stated, in the pre¬ 
sence of this enlightened court, what is the law upon this subject. I 
assert then, that the ignoring of a bill by a grand jury is, according 
to the known and established principles of our law, no bar to any 
subsequent legal proceeding against the same individual for the same 
offence. It is competent to the crown or the prosecutor to send up 
another bill to the same or any other grand jury ; and the same 
power belongs to that public authority in which is vested the right of 
tiling an information. A party who has been already tried, may pro¬ 
tect himself against a subsequent prosecution for the same offence. 
He may do so by plea ;.it is a principle of our law that no man shall 
be twice tried for the same offence ; if he has been already acquitted 
there is a known legal form of pleading as old as the law itself, by 
which he can defend himself. But it is settled by authorities coeval 
with the law itself, that the plea of autrefois acquit is not sup¬ 
ported by evidence, that a bill of indictment for the same offence has 
been preferred to a grand jury and ignored. It must be an acquittal by 
a petit jury. Your lordships would consider it a waste of time to refer 
to authorities in support of such a position. It is laid down by Lord 
Hale, Lord Coke, and every writer on the subject of crown law. I 
shall not consume time by adverting to cases for recognition of known 
principles; the thing can only be doubted by those who are igno¬ 
rant of our laws and constitution. That another indictment could 
be sent up is clear.; and I think I go a good way to show its lega¬ 
lity, by calling upon those who deny it, to show me any form o i 
pleading by which it can be resisted. There is no legal right be¬ 
longing to any subject of this realm, which the law has not afforded 
him a mode of setting forth ; and therefore if there be no form of 
pleading, (and if there were such, my learned friends, in whose 
hands the interests of the traversers are so effectually secured, would 
have discovered it) by which the throwing out of a bill by a grand 
jury, may be set up as a bar to a subsequent information, that is in 
itself a full proof of the legality of such a proceeding. They have 


252“ 


plunket’s speeches. 


indeed distinctly admitted it, by putting in pleas not denying the 
competence of the attorney-general to file, or of 'the court to enter¬ 
tain, the present information, but asserting their innocence of the 
charge imputed to them. In an ordinary case, not affecting the 
rights of the crown, this court is in the habit of granting criminal 
informations; the right formerly exercised by the master in the 
crown office has been narrowed by statute, and is now subject to the 
discretion of the court. Has it ever been heard of, that the Court of 
King’s Bench would refuse an information, because a grand jury had 
ignored the bill ? 

So much trash has been circulated, and the public mind so much 
abused upon this subject, that I hope your lordships will excuse my 
calling your attention to it. So far from its being considered an 
objection, that a grand jury has ignored the bill, it is often a reason 
why the Court of King’s Bench grants an information. I have often 
applied for liberty to file an information, when I had the honour of 
practising in this court; and the court has asked me whether I had. 
tried a grand jury; saying, that if they refused to find a bill, they 
would then entertain the application. The Court of King’s Bench 
in England in the last term granted an information in a case where 
bills had been twice ignored by a grand jury, and because they had 
been ignored. So far therefore is that circumstance from being con¬ 
sidered an objection to putting a party on his trial,, that it is fre¬ 
quently insisted upon as a requisite condition. Thus it is where 
application is made to the Court of King’s Bench. This is an infor¬ 
mation filed by the sworn officer of the crown, in whom the law has 
vested that privilege. Were I to come in as attorney-general, and 
apply for liberty to file an information against these parties, what 
would be your lordship’s answer ?—the same as was given by my 
Lord Mansfield to De Grey, aud I think to Sir Fletcher Norton; 
namely, “We will not file an information at your suit; the law has 
made you the sole judge of its propriety; if you think it proper, you 
lave a right to file it; if not, why should we do so ?” 1 am not 

now applying myself to the soundness of this exercise of discretion, 
but to the new-fangled notion of the illegality of this information. 

It is the privilege of the lowest subject in the realm, if by the error 
or impropriety of a grand jury he do not obtain justice, to apply to 
the Court of King’s Bench for a criminal information ; but the king, 
it fis said, is to be in a totally different situation ; aud though for an 
dfience indictable the court would grant au information because a 
grand jury has ignored the bill, the sovereign himself shall not have 
that redrefes which is open to the meanest of his subjects. A pro- 


THE BOTTLE KI0T. 


253 


position this too monstrous to bear debate. I am asked for an 
authority; permit me to say, this is not quite a fair requisition; where 
a circumstance is totally immaterial, it is not to be expected that it 
should be the subject of notice ; and therefore we are not to be sur¬ 
prised, if in the greater number Of reported cases of informations it 
should not appear whether a grand jury had previously thrown out 
bills or not; such a fact would be totally immaterial- It cannot be 
stated in a plea; it could not be proved in evidence, and therefore 
it would be too much to say that because it is not mentioned the 
case has not existed. 

It has been my principle to hold in utter contempt the vile and 
scurrilous publications which have been circulated through the city, 
iu order to prejudge the matters to be tried, and affect the character* 
of the persons employed as public functionaries. But I have, by the 
generosity of some of their authors, been furnished with a case di¬ 
rectly in point, in which, by accident, the fact of bills having been 
ignored by the grand jury before the information filed does dis¬ 
tinctly appear. 

I shall detail the facts as they appear in the Commons’ Journals. 
In the latter end of the reign of Queen Anne, in the year 1713, on 
King William’s birthday, the play of Tamerlane was to be repre¬ 
sented. King William, as your lordships are aware, was compared 
to Tamerlane, and very deservedly so, if the possession of every 
virtue that could ennoble a monarch entitled him to the distinction. 
The name of Tamerlane had been connected with his. A prologue 
to the play, written by Doctor Garth, was very generally repeated 
at the time. The doctor it seems was more happy as a poet than 
as a courtier, and his reverence for King William led him to com¬ 
pliment that monarch in terms not sufficiently guarded to avoid giv¬ 
ing offence to Queen Anne. The government therefore thought it 
right that the prologue should not be repeated. When the play there¬ 
fore came on for representation, the actor omitted to repeat it, and 
by so doing, gave great offence to the audience.. They were full of 
respect for the memory of William, and did not wish that attention 
to Queen Anne should break in on the ancient practice. Mr. Dudley 
Moore, a zealous Protestant, who was in the house, leaped upon the 
stage, and repeated the prologue. This gave rise to something like 
a riot. The government indicted Mr. Moore for the riot. The bills 
were sent up to a grand jury, who. retarned a true bill, and were 
then dismissed, in about half an hour after, the foreman came into 
court, and made an affidavit that “ billa vera ” was a mistake, and 
tnat they meant to return “ iynoramus .” The court refused to re¬ 
ft 


plunket’s speeches. 


>o 4 


caive his affidavit; but then came in the three and twenty, and 
swore positively to the same fact to which their foreman had de¬ 
posed. The party was notwithstanding this, in my opinion ver} 
unwisely, put to plead to the indictment. But the attorney-general, 
thinking it would be hard to compel him to plead when the bill had 
been in fact ignored, moved to quash the indictment, which was 
done. Do I overstate the matter when I say, that things were then 
in the same situation as if the bill had been ignored by the grand 
jury? And yet under these circumstances, the attorney-general 
thought himself at liberty to file an ex officio information against the 
same person for the same offence. Sir Constantine Phipps, who 
was then lord chancellor, and one of the lords justices, was con¬ 
sidered by many .as a great Tory and Jacobite, and as an enemy to 
the Protestant interest. History has done more justice to him in 
that respect than in the heat of party he received from his contem¬ 
poraries. He interfered with the prosecution; he sent for the lord 
mayor, and lectured him as to the mode in which he was to conduct 
himself. He was even supposed to have interfered with the return 
of the jury. The whole matter was brought before the House of 
Commons, who addressed the throne to remove Sir Constantine 
Phipps for intermeddling in the trial. No fault was found with the 
information though directly before them, but the trial was treated 
as legally depending, and a petition presented against the chancellor 
for interfering with that trial. Do I not here show a case in which 
an ex officio information had been filed after a bill had been thrown 
out, and where though the zeal of party generated an anxiety to 
lay hold of anything that could warrant an imputat : on on the pro¬ 
ceeding, as the information filed was never questioned, but the chan¬ 
cellor and chief governor petitioned against for interfering with the 
proceeding. 

I shall not trouble your lordships farther upon the legality of this 
proceeding. With respect to the soundness of the exercise of my 
discretion, under the circumstances, in resorting to the prerogative 
right, I shall reserve myself uutil I shall have laid before the court 
aud the jury the facts which will be proved in the case. I have 
already said, that I will prove that an attempt has been made by a 
gang in this city for the purpose of controlling the law, and putting 
down the authority of the king’s lieutenant. It is unfortunately ne¬ 
cessary to show, that the individuals concerned in this outrage are 
persons belonging to a society known by the name of the Orange 
society. But it is particularly necessary, gentlemen of the jury, that 
you and the court and the public should understand what was for- 


THE BOTTLE RIOT. 


255 


raerly uttered by me, and what I now repeat. I am desirous of ex¬ 
pressly stating, that with the general nature of the Orange societies, 
in relation to the laws, the interests, and happiness of the country, I 
have on this trial nothing to do. Upon this subject I have my 
opinions, which at a proper place and season I shall not shrink from 
avowing. But with the present investigation they have no concern. 
I do believe in my conscience, that the greater proportion of persons 
associated in that society feel as strong and lofty a contempt for 
those concerned in this disgraceful attack as I do, and are as inca¬ 
pable of participating, authorizing, vindicating, or palliating it. 
Every public man must expect to be the subject of no very candid 
criticism. I wish distinctly to have it understood, that this is no 
after-thought of mine, for the purpose of qualifying expressions 
either inadvertently or too strongly used. Had I applied these ex¬ 
pressions indiscriminately to the Orangemen of Ireland, I should 
have violated my duty, and stepped beyond that line of conducting 
this prosecution, which was distinctly agreed upon between me and 
the eminent and respectable persons by whom I have been advised. 
I am glad to take this opportunity once for all, of returning my 
thanks to my learned colleague, by whose high talents, enlightened 
information, and extensive knowledge, I have been assisted in every 
stage of this proceeding, and to whose cordial zeal and co-operation 
no terms can be too strong to render justice and express my grati¬ 
tude. 

My lords, I am anxious to proceed to an immediate statement of 
the facts of this case, and to disperse that mass of scurrility and false¬ 
hood which for some weeks past has disgraced this city. I must 
however first trespass on your time with some preliminary observa¬ 
tions. 

It is impossible to lay this case truly before the public without* 
briefly reverting to the political events in which the conspiracy ori¬ 
ginated. 

The foundations of it were laid so long back as the period when 
his majesty was pleased to honour this country with his presence. 

It is not, my lords, my intention to occupy your time by attempt¬ 
ing a description of what took place on that occasion. From the 
minds of those who witnessed the transaction, the splendour and 
glory of that day never can be effaced. To those who have not, no 
powers of mine can give an adequate dcsciiption. It falls to me to 
have the less pleasing task of remarking, that even then some indi¬ 
cations were to be found, that his majesty’s gracious dispositions 
were not likely to be met with that degree of gratitude and respect 


256 


plukket’s speeches. 


to which they were entitled, and that even before he left the Irish 
shore the elements of mischief were at work. It was understood that 
the king, before he honoured the Mansion House with his presence, 
had signified his desire that the glorious memory should not be given 
as a toast. I. must entreat your excuse, my lords, (it connects itself 
intimately with the matter of this trial) if I advert more particularly 
to this topic, and endeavour to disabuse the public mind upon the 
subject. 

Perhaps, my lords, there is not to be found in the annals of history 
a character more truly great than that of William the Third. Per¬ 
haps no person has ever appeared on the theatre of the world, who 
has conferred more essential or more lasting benefits on mankind; 
on these countries, certainly none. When I look at the abstract 
merits of his character, I contemplate him with admiration and reve¬ 
rence. Lord of a petty principality—destitute of all resources but 
those with which nature had endowed him—regarded with jealousy 
and envy by those whose battles he fought; thwarted in all his 
counsels; embarrassed in all his movements ; deserted in his most 
critical enterprises—he continued to mould all those discordant ma¬ 
terials, to govern all these warring interests, and merely by the force 
of his genius, the ascendancy of his integrity, and the immoveable 
firmness and constancy of his nature, to combine them into an indis¬ 
soluble alliance against the schemes of despotism and universal do¬ 
mination of the most powerful monarch in Europe; seconded by the 
ablest generals, at the head of the bravest and best disciplined armies 
in the world, and wielding, without check or control, the unlimited 
resources of his empire. He was not a consummate general; mili¬ 
tary men will point out his errors; in that respect fortune did not 
tavour him, save by throwing the lustre of adversity over all his vir¬ 
tues. He sustained defeat after defeat, but always rose adversa 
rerum immersabilis unda. Looking merely at his shining quali¬ 
ties and achievements, I admire him as I do a Scipio, a Regains, a 
Fabius; a model of tranquil courage, undeviating probity, and 
armed with a resoluteness and constancy in the cause of truth and 
freedom, which rendered him superior to the accideiits that control 
the fate of ordinary men. 

Rut this is not all—I feel, that to him, under God, I am, at this 
moment, indebted for the enjoyment of the rights which I possess 
as a subject of these free countries; to him I owe the blessings of 
civil and religious liberty, and 1 venerate his memory with a fervour 
of devotion suited to his illustrious qualities and to his godlike acts. 

Did our gracious sovereign come here to trample on the memory 


THE BOTTLE RIOT. 


257 




of. the most illustrious of his predecessors ? No, my lords; the high 
errand on which he landed on our shores was worthy of him, and 
bespoke a kindred mind to that of the immortal personage whose 
name and character he vindicated. He knew that the whole life oi 
King William was a continued struggle against intolerance ; that th« 
policy of his reign was opposed, and his most favourite objects for 
the peace and happiness of his people were baffled, by the folly and 
bigotry of those who surrounded him; and that the career of his glorious 
life was obstructed, as the lustre of his glorious memory has been 
tarnished, by the absurd and intolerant dogmatism of those who were 
rescued by his exertions from that yoke which they sought, in op¬ 
position to his eager wishes, to impose on others. It was the unhappy 
but inevitable result of the circumstances in which the people of this 
unfortunate country were placed, that they had to meet that great 
man, not as subjects, but as enemies. The peculiar good fortune of 
the British people was, that every feeling of religion corresponded 
with their innate love of freedom to alienate them from the cause of 
the exiled monarch. His designs, his determinations against their 
civil and religious liberties, were notorious aud unalterable. An in¬ 
flexible bigot and despot, he was too intense in both characters to 
endure the appearance of a compromise with toleration or with free¬ 
dom. Yet every man knows through what difficulties and dangers they 
had to struggle before the house of Brunswick was firmly seated on 
the throne. Even with the full tide of religion running in their 
favour, the principle of loyalty to an hereditary succession was so 
indigenous to the British character, that it was not until after the 
lapse of nearly a century that the principles of Jacobitism were finally 
subdued. 

But in unhappy Ireland the exiled king was the professor and 
patron of the religion to which they were enthusiastically devoted. 
He must be a preposterous critic who will impute as a crime to that 
unhappy people, that they did not rebel against their lawful king, 
because he was of their own religion, even if they had been so fully 
admitted to the blessings of the British constitution as to render 
them equally alive to the value of freedom. They seem, therefore, 
by the nature of things, almost necessarily thrown into a state of 
resistance ; nothing could have saved them from it but so strong a 
love of abstract freedom as might subdue the principles of loyalty 
and the. feelings of religion. No candid man can lay so heavily on 
poor human nature; nor fairly say, that he thinks worse of the 
Boman Catholic, for having on that day abided by his lavyful sove¬ 
reign and his ancient faith. What was the result? They were con- 




258 


PLUNKET’S SPEECHES. 


quered—conquered into freedom and happiness—a freedom and hap¬ 
piness to which the successful result of their ill-fated struggles would 
have been destructive. There is no rational linnan Catholic in Ire¬ 
land who does not feel this to be the fact. Even the name of the 
exiled family is now unknown ; the throne rests on the firm basis of 
the unanimous recognition of the entire people. The memory of 
their unfortunate struggles is lost in the conviction of the reality of 
those blessings, which have been derived from their results equally to 
the conqueror and to the conquered. What wise or good man can 
feel a pleasure in recalling to the minds of a people so circumstanced 
the fact that they have been conquered? What but the spirit of 
folly and of mischief can take a satisfaction in interrupting them in 
the enjoyment of the blessings of their defeat, by tauniing them with 
the recollection that they were defeated? Why is conquest desirable 
to any one but the trooper ? Because it opens the way to peace and 
harmony; but to those I have now to deal with, the fruits of the con¬ 
quest are valueless, without the perpetuation of the triumph. 

He is a mischievous man who desires to remind the people of this 
country that they are a conquered people, lie is a mischievous man* 
who, for the gratification of his own whim, desires to celebrate, in 
the midst of that people, the anniversary of their conquest. Never 
was there a subject more loudly calling for and justifying the gracious 
and saving interposition of the royal wisdom. 

In the history of royal lives there seldom has occurred an instance 
affording a more gratifying subject for the historian to dwell on, than 
the royal visit to Ireland. The statement of splendid victories, the 
development of profound schemes of policy, the application of able 
counsels, and of powerful resources, the defence of the liberties of the 
world; all these are the subjects of historic detail, and may be the 
fair subjects of political controversy. But here, by the mere impulse 
of his own feelings, the heartiness of his nature, a moment wa» 
created in which, without calling on any of the common places of 
royalty, without the aid of force, or fear, or flattery; without arms, 
or power, or patronage ; by the mere indulgence of his kind and 
generous nature, he gained to himself the most exalted privileges 
which a human being can exercise—that of bestowing happiness on, 
and sharing it with, millions of his fellow-creatures. The promptness 
with which this moment was seized—the gracious and condescending 
manner by which it was improved—the thousand and ten thousand 
blessings which are to be derived from it—all these may be subjects 
of just applause and of sober criticism. But here the true value of 
Uie act is its simplicity. To enter into the hearts and become mas* 


T1IE BOTTLE RIOT. 


259 


ter of the enthusiastic affections of an entire people, merely by show¬ 
ing himself the friend and father of them all, was a felicity to him 
<aud them uuparalleled in the eventful history of this nation; it was 
worthy of a successor of the great monarch, whose talents and vir¬ 
tues he emulated, and whose memory he rescued from the disgraceful 
orgies by which it had been tarnished. Equal in the motive and the 
feeling—happier in this, that the hard fortune of William the Third 
compelled him to visit this country as a conqueror; but it was re¬ 
served for the peculiar felicity of George the Fourth, that he was the 
first British king who ever placed a friendly footstep upon the Irish 
soil. 

I have already had occasion to remark, that the intimation of his 
majesty’s pleasure on the subject of public concord was not perfectly 
agreeable to a certain portion of his subjects. Some little clouds were 
seen flitting along the horizon, which indicated the probability of a 
future storm. How far the government of the country were enabled 
to act on the personal recommendation and parting injunctions of the 
king—what were the difficulties the Irish government had to encounter 
—what were the means they used to surmount them, these are mat¬ 
ters which do not belong to the present subject. I pass to the period 
of Lord Wellesley’s arrival in this country. He found a great por¬ 
tion of the south of Ireland in a state of licentiousness, surpassing the 
worst excesses of former unhappy times. He had to deal with dan¬ 
gerous and secret conspiracies in other parts of the country. In what 
manner the lord lieutenant applied the powerful energies of his great 
mind to meet these complicated difficulties does not fall within the 
compass or limit of this trial. It would ill suit with my notions of 
what is due to the Marquis Wellesley, and of his temper and charac¬ 
ter, to offer up the suspicious praises which an Irish attorney-genera) 
is supposed bound to tender to the lord lieutenant. I am too sensible 
of the well-formed taste of this illustrious person, not to be convinced 
that he would reject with disdain the vulgar incense of official adula¬ 
tion, if I could stoop to offer it. No, my loidt, it woMd be an uu- 
suited return for the kindness, the confidence, I will presume to say, 
the friendship, with which he has honoured me ; I kuow too well his 
lofty feelings and noble nature, w cui male si palpere , recalcitrat 
undique tutus —but I will not be deterred by the apprehension of 
a suspicion which I disdain, and to which I trust the character of ray 
life renders me superior, from expressing my sentiments of that exalted 
personage, when he has become the object of vulgar scurrility, and 
when an open and desperate attack is made upon his person and his 
government. 1 will not be deterred from saying, that had our gru- 



2fiO 


plunket’s speeches. 


cions sovereign surveyed the extent of his dominious in search of on$ 
fitted to execute the magnificent purposes of benevolence to his peo¬ 
ple, with which his royal breast was filled, he could not have found 
a person whom the gifts of nature, improved by every noble art, and 
mellowed by a long and arduous experience in the most difficult exi¬ 
gencies of this great empire, so. eminently qtualified for the task : or 
one whose heart so entirely and cordially vibrated in unison with the 
gracious aud paternal interest which was felt for the welfare of his 
native land. That noble peer entered on the government of this 
country under this royal instruction; he had to explore a very diffi¬ 
cult and dangerous and untried path, but he had the parting admo¬ 
nition and the renewed injunctions of his sovereign for his pole star. 
He entered on that government, carefully distinguishing his opinions 
and duties as a politician and a legislator, from those which neces¬ 
sarily involved the system of government of the country committed to 
him. Never abandoning, but carefully distinguishing, his individual 
opinion from his official duties, he applied himself strictly and exclu¬ 
sively to effectuate the orders of the king, by the equal administration 
of the existing laws, and by the promotion of peace, happiness, and 
concord among all the various classes of his subjects. I defy the 
malignity of criticism to point out a false move in the government of 
that noble person; one instance in which he departed from the spirit 
of that mission of conciliation which was confided to him; an act or 
an expression calculated to excite offence or disapprobation in the 
mind of any honest man or lover of his country, be his sect or his 
party what it may. Pursuing his clear and undeviating course; 
raised above all party, the laws for his guide, aud the public happi¬ 
ness for his object, his fame is independent of the praise of his friends, 
and above the malice of his enemies. It is our business, my lords, to 
guard his person and his government against their secret machina¬ 
tions and their open violence. 

The discontinuance of the public insults to which I have already 
alluded, and which has been so highly disapproved of by the king, 
necessarily had a place in the system of the lord lieutenant. The 
offensive toast which had been renewed in the presence of the late 
lord lieutenant was withheld in t ie presence of Lord Wellesley. I 
grieve to say that a spirit of mutiny and dissatisfaction on this sub¬ 
ject wa3 giddily and rashly encouraged by many who knew and ought 
to have reverenced the king’s commands. The lord lieutenant, how¬ 
ever highly he disapproved the giving the toast on public occasions, 
did not think it became him to take any further r.tep, having taken 
care that the king’s authority should not,,, in his presence, be insulted 


TH& BOTTLE RIOT. 2,151' 

by it. Anotuer subject, or rather another part of the subject* called 
his attention. 

The statue of King William, you all know, has been, for some 
years back, bedaubed with ridiculous painting and tawdry orange 
colours—a ludicrous specimen of bad taste, with which, however, his 
excellency did not feel himself called on to intermeddle. But beyond 
this, a set of low persons, whose names were not avowed, had been 
for some years back in the habit of mounting the statue.in the night 
of the 3rd of November, and of the 11th of July, and putting on it 
a fantastic drapery of orange scarfs, in themselves ridiculous, if they 
had not been meant as a mark of triumph over a certain portion of 
their fellow-subjects. This being done by a party of sworn Orange¬ 
men, and for the avowed purpose of insult, had been resented by the 
Roman Catholics whom it was intended to insult; and on the 12th 
of July last a serious riot had occurred, the insulted party conceiving 
that they had as good a right to undress, as the other had to dress, 
the statue of King William. In the course of this affray lives had 
been endangered, the peaceable inhabitants of College-green seriously 
alarmed, the tranquillity of the metropolis disturbed, and evil passions 
of the most furious kind engendered in the minds of the parties. It 
is obvious that one of these three courses was to be pursued. Either 
the dressers of the statue were to be protected by public force and 
the constituted authorities; or they were to be forbidden and pre¬ 
vented ; or the parties were to be left to fight it out, till outrage, riot, 
and bloodshed arrived at such a height that the civil power must act 
against both. I have never heard it distinctly stated, or that it was 
distinctly stated by any person, that either the first or the last of 
these courses ought to have been proved; either that the public 
authorities should have been called to assist the nightly party in 
making the toilet of King William, and to apprehend any person who 
should presume to interrupt them ; or that the streets of the capital 
should be disgraced by the 'continuance of these senseless brawls. 
The first question on which his excellency had to satisfy his mind 
was, whether the continuance of the practice of dressing the statue 
might, under such circumstances, be legally prevented. 

He was advised that it clearly mightthat these mummers had 
no right to lay their hands on this public ornament, whether for the 
purpose of decoration or dedecoration. Gentlemen, I remember that 
on one occasion a set of ruffians mounted this statue, and daubed it 
over with lampblack. Neither they nor any other persons had a 
right to meddle with the public ornaments, either to adorn or dis¬ 
grace them. But independently of this, his excellency was adviced 


262 


plunket’s speeches. 


that this being proposed to be done, not in discharge of any 
acknowledge 1 duty, or in the prosecution of any known business, 
or in the exercise of any right of property or franchise, either by 
grant or usage, and being found by experience to have a tendency 
to produce and to have actually produced a breach of the peace, and 
it being proved on oath that it had done so, and that its continuance 
excited well-grounded apprehensions for the safety of their persons 
in the minds of the king’s subjects residing in the neighbourhood, 
several of whom, persons of known respectability, and Protestants 
too, had made affidavit to that effect, his excellency was advised, 
that he would be well warranted in using the civil force to prevent 
the dressing of the statue. 

I am ashamed to think that it should be necessary to say, in a 
court of justice, that they were Protestants. I say this, because 
there arc persons weak, enough to imagine that the oath of a Catholic 
is not to be attended to on this subject, and because it has been un¬ 
truly stated that these were affidavits of Catholics of the lower order. 
I owe an apology to the good sense and feeling of the court and the 
jury for stating what their religion was ; it is a disgrace to our 
country that such topics should be adverted to. Gentlemen, I have 
been public prosecutor in this country at a period when the passions 
of men were most alive; and never in the course of my official expe¬ 
rience have I given any other advice to the solicitor for-the crown 
than to select honest and fair men, without reference to their religious 
opinions, and I have never felt myself disappointed in the result; 
and therefore you will not suppose that the circumstance of these 
persons being Protestants was necessary to prop their credit in my 
estimation. 

I am glad to have this opportunity of stating, that being called 
on in the discharge of my sworn duty for my opinion, I gave it as 
[ have stated, and I challenge any man who respects his character 
as a constitutional lawyer to correct its soundness. It is no light 
matter to charge the executive government with acting contrary to 
law against any portion of the people ; it begets in their minds the 
notion, that in resisting the civil authorities they are resisting not 
law, but power—such a course is calculated to bring the government 
of the country into contempt; and when the acts so spoken of have 
been done in pursuance of the king’s instructions, it is a violation of 
the personal respect which is due to him, independently of its ten¬ 
dency to weaken the authority of his government in this country. 

His excellency was, independently of any respect which his kind¬ 
ness might dispose him to attach to the opinion of his law advisor, 


THE BOTTLE RIOT* 


263 


perfectly satisfied of the illegality of the Dractice in question; and I 
am authorised to take this public opportunity of stating, that having 
communicated on the subject with the king’s government in Eng¬ 
land, he was sanctioned by their unanimous opinion in using the 
civil power for the prevention of these illegal practices. I am fur¬ 
ther authorised to state, that since his excellency adopted the mea¬ 
sures which are so publicly known for the carrying that opinion into 
effect, his conduct has received the unanimous approbation of the 
entire British cabinet, and has, above all, been crowned by the 
highest reward which a subject can receive for the faithful discharge 
of his duty—the personal approbation of his sovereign, whose com¬ 
mands he executed, and whose government he sustained. 

Before his excellency resorted to any public means for the sup¬ 
pression of this practice, he tried every expedient, by persuasion and 
remonstrance, to obviate the necessity of public interference. It is 
but justice to say that many, very many of the principal persons 
who were supposed to have an influence over the Orange associa¬ 
tions did exert their authority for the purpose; but whatever were 
their exertions, they were unavailing; they found they could not 
govern the party with whom they had associated themselves. So must 
it ever be, when rank and station and education condescend to com¬ 
bine in a secret bond with the vulgar and the ignorant. They must 
not expect to govern them ; so long as they run in the same course 
of party and opinion, they may be suffered to lead ; but in vain will 
they endeavour to alter the direction or moderate the violence 
When the evil spirit is unchained and let loose, the spell that raised 
it will be unavailing to allay it: for the purposes of a greater ex¬ 
citement they may be powerful and dangerous ; for those of repres¬ 
sion and restraint altogether impotent* The lower classes of these 
persons declared they would di.'Obey the lord mayor’s proclamation 
and resist the magistrates. Furious and absurd speeches were made 
at public meetings, tilled with vulgar invectives against the consti¬ 
tuted authorities ; and preparations were made for resistance to the 
law. The dressing of the statue on the night of the third and day 
of the fourth of November was prevented ; but on subsequent nights, 
particularly on the night of the 6th of November, several of the 
party assembled for the purpose, and were not dispersed without con¬ 
siderable disturbance and difficulty. On this occasion the traverser 
Henry Handwich was particularly active; he headed a party vrho 
arrayed themselves against the magistracy for the purpose of dress¬ 
ing the statue. He was, it seems, the regular mantua maker to 
King William. He collected subscriptions on the night between 




plunket’s speeches 


2fi4 

the fifth and sixth of November; he mounted on the statne, and 
nailed upon it the tawdry ornaments with which he was furnished. 
With some difficulty he and his party were suppressed ; they were 
dispersed before morning. Two or three similar attempts were 
afterwards made, but the firmness of the magistrates was sufficient 
to put them down. 

In this situation of affairs, the lord lieutenant availed himself of 
the first opportunity which the various claims of public care allowed 
him, to announce his intention of honouring the Theatre Royal with 
his presence ; a play was accordingly announced, and, notice given. 

I shall now state the facts of this case, which will be so clearly 
proved, and placed so far beyond all doubt, that no gentleman whom 
I have the honour of seeing in that jury box, can leave it with a 
doubt upon his mind as to the real nature of the transaction. Cer¬ 
tain persons met together, and conceived that this would be a good 
opportunity of marking their public indignation against the Mar¬ 
quess Wellesley, for presuming to enforce the king’s command in for¬ 
bidding the dressing of the statue. One of those persons, gentle¬ 
men, (melancholy, if this be so, is the situation of the lord lieu¬ 
tenant) holds high situations under the king’s government, a place 
in the post office, and another in the customs, producing nearly £800 
a year. I allude to a man named William Heron. This person, and 
another of the name of M‘Cullogh, who holds a situation in the 
Meath hospital; a man named Atkinson holding a situation in the 
•custom house, and others, on the night of Wednesday or the morning of 
the Thursday before the play, consulted as to the best means of deal¬ 
ing with the subject. The result they came to was, that this would be 
a proper opportunity for acting in the theatre in such a manner, as 
to evince the unpopularity of the lord lieutenant and his govern¬ 
ment, and make it necessary for him to leave the house, and eventu¬ 
ally to leave the country. It was determined that a subscription should 
be raised to purchase tickets. Well knowing that the true expres¬ 
sion of the public sentiment would be strong in favour of his excel¬ 
lency, they resolved, in order to thwart it, to collect a party and 
pack the theatre. They thought the persons who were associated 
would of themselves be sufficient for the pit and the middle gallery ; 
but that for the inferior orders, seats must be purchased. Accord¬ 
ingly a subscription of £2 was collected by Heron, and sent by him 
to Atkinson. This was to be communicated to an Orange lodge, 
assembled at the house of one Daly in Werburgh-street, in what is 
called the Purple Order of the lodge. That, gentlemen, is not con- 
leired upon any person until he has been for a certain time a morn* 


'THE BOTTLE RIOT. 


ber of the General Institution. This subscription was given to the 
parties present at the lodge, and an additional subscription was raised 
by them. Two of those lodges were concerned. The traverser, 
James Forbes, is a member of the lodge 1660. lie is deputy mas¬ 
ter of that lodge. William Graham is secretary of the same. 
Henry Handwich and Matthew Handwich are members of the lo(lge 
780, of which Henry is deputy master; and William Brownlow is 
a member of 1612. Although it is necessarily my duty to show who 
and what these persons are, I do not meddle with the general cha¬ 
racter of Orange lodges in Ireland, the merits of which are for an¬ 
other place. I am well satisfied that the great body of Orangemen 
feel as much abhorrence at this crime as any individual can tlo. 
With this subscription a number of pit tickets were purchased on 
Saturday morning from the box keeper at the play house. This was 
for the purpose of filling the upper gallery. It was thought that the 
members who were able to purchase tickets for themselves would be 
sufficient for the pit and middle gallery. One pit ticket was to be 
given to every three. Forbes was present Avhen this subscription was 
raised. On the Saturday morning, Forbes, M‘Culloch, and Atkinson 
went together to the theatre, and purchased the tickets. They re¬ 
gularly proceeded to fashion the conspiracy in all its parts. It was 
determined that an inferior Orange Lodge, to which Handwich be¬ 
longed, and which met at Mrs. Daly’s in Ship-street, should be ready 
to go to the Theatre to execute the plan. Application was made in 
the morning to Matthew Handwich at his work, and he was desired 
to communicate with his brother Henry. Accordingly, about tour 
o’clock in the evening of Saturday the parties met—Forbes, Atkin- 
j sou, the Handwiches, and others. They were first supplied with drink. 

I They came armed with sticks. Handwich had been asked, if he could 
* furnish sixty men. He said he could. He had not quite so many 
at first, but the number was completed in the passage to the Theatre. 

! They were dispatched from the place of meeting in parties of three, 
i each with a pit ticket. The number was at first sixty, but afterwards 
increased to near an hundred. They were armed with bludgeons. 
The residue of the whiskey they had been drinking they put into a 
| bottle aud carried to the theatre. The last words of Handwich, on 
leaving the place of meeting, were “ boys be wicked.” It was settled 
that the duty of Lodge 1612 should be, to go to the pit door, and 
beset it before it was open, and to rush in in a body, and occupy that 
part of the pit next to his excellency’s box. Their directions were, 
that as soon as “ God save the King” was played, the “Boyne Water” 
should be called for, and if it were refused, that the play should oe 

* 



266 


plunket’s speeches. 


stopped, and that a system of hissing, groaning, and violence should 
commence. One of the party had a large rattle in his hand, for the 
purpose of riot. I should tell you, that at the meeting held of the 
Purple Order, on Friday evening, and at which Forbes was present, 
the plan was fully announced of compelling the lord lieutenant to 
leave the theatre, and if possible, the country. One of the party 
even offered to lay a wager that before March he would be out of 
the country. Findiug that these conspirators entertained such seri¬ 
ous views, that their object was to make such a demonstration of 
hostility as to compel his excellency to quit the country, and that 
this was to be effected by resistance, by riot, and even by personal 
violence, one of the parties engaged took the alarm. He was shocked 
nt the extent to which their fury might go. At one time he had 
formed the resolution of going to the lord lieutenant, and apprising 
him of the truth, and the danger to which he was exposed. He went 
to the park; a sentinel at the gate of the viceregal lodge asked him 
his business; his mind was in that situation, in which a trivial cir¬ 
cumstance makes an alteration—he hesitated, and returned, and the 
disclosure was not made. 

Gentlemen, the party (1612) which had been arranged for the 
purpose, rushed into the pit, and occupied that part of it which was 
nearest the viceregal box ; the upper gallery party, to the number of 
60, went there with the pit tickets. They had fixed upon a watch¬ 
word, “ look outthey seated themselves on the left hand side of 
the gallery, where the violence was carried on during the night. 
Forbes placed them at their posts in the upper gallery, armed with 
bludgeons; the police occupied the opposite side of the house, and 
like faithful watchmen fell asleep on their posts ; no interruption was 
given to the merriment or to the mischief of the party. To show the 
deliberation of their plans I should mention, that previously to the 
play, handbills were struck off, containing expressions insulting to 
the lord lieutenant; such as “ Down with the Popish government,” 
&c., and other expressions insignificant and contemptible, except as 
evincing deliberation and concert. These handbills were brought to 
the theatre, and disposed of by the members of the conspiracy; 
several were thrown by M‘Gulloch, from the lattices over the lord 
lieutenant’s box, and others from various parts of the house. It will 
be proved, that from the opening of the tneatre, the grossest system 
of insulting and offensive expressions was commenced; groans were 
raised for “ the Popish Lord Lieutenant,” and cries of “ no Popish 
Government.” There were also groans for the house of Wellesley. 
They did not confine themselves to the noble lord at the head of the 




THE BOTTLE RIOT. 


267 

government—they extended to the Duke of Wellington, and the other 
branches of his illustrious family. Not satisfied with that, these 
advocates of religion gave “ a clap for the Calf’s Head,” an allusion 
to a monstrous outrage committed in or near Ardec, by some ruffians 
who profaned a Roman Catholic place of worship by placing such a 
thing upon the altar. They applauded also Sheriff Thorpe, with the 
Calf’s Head. There was “ a groan for the bloody Popish Lord 
Lieutenant.” I cannot remember all the terms of outrage which 
were used. Some persons, not connected with the gang, cried out 
“ Shame, shame”—of these some were severely beaten, and one man 
had a narrow escape by getting down from the upper into the mid¬ 
dle gallery; several were alarmed and left the house. When the 
lord lieutenant came in, there was a general expression of approba¬ 
tion from the audience, which for some time bore down the hisses of 
the conspirators. Rut when an opportunity arose, a violent hissing 
and groaning were set up. These tilings went on till “ God save the 
King” was played ; at that period, a bottle was thrown from the up¬ 
per gallery, which hit the stage curtain. The fact will be proved 
by a variety of witnesses, who will leave no doubt upon it in your 
minds. It was flung from the gallery by Henry Handwich. He 
will appear to have been a leader of the party. You will have the 
testimony of several distinct and independent witnesses, who can 
have no other object than to tell the truth. Several persons saw the 
bottle in its progress. Amongst the idle reports which have been 
circulated as to this transaction, it has been said, that this came from 
the carpenters’ gallery—and from the pit—but gentlemen, we shall 
put the fact beyond all controversy. As to the precise point where 
it hit the curtain, there is a diversity of opinion; but that it hit 
somewhere nearer to the lord lieutenant than to the centre, all ths 
accounts concur. Some of the witnesses say it struck within four 
feet of the side next the lord lieutenant, and within four feet of the 
stage. Another says, that it was the breadth of a festoon. But all 
concur in this, that it was thrown, and that their impression was that 
it was directed.against the lord lieutenant. It was thrown from the 
same side on which his excellency sat. You will ask why did they 
get to that side. The right hand side had been early occupied by 
other persons ; and the conspirators feeling it necessary to be in a 
body, were obliged to-go. to the left. The precise situation in which 
Handwich was placed when he threw the bottle, will be proved to 
you. He threw it under him, or by a side motion, and not over him. 
Any person who will attend to the position in which he was, as well 
as to that of the lord lieutenant, will easily account for the aberration 




2G8 


plunket’s- speeches. 


of the instrument. All the witnesses agree in stating it to be their 


impression that the bottle was directed against his excellency. Be¬ 


sides the general proof to show that the bottle came from the upper 
gallery, there are three witnesses who distinctly saw Henry Hand- 
wich throw it. One whose arrival we hourly expect, had his atten¬ 
tion excited by some expression of Handwich, and immediately 
marked him. He swears positively to his having thrown the bottle. 
George Graham was one of the principal rioters. He had a large 
rattle which lie used at first for the purpose of making a noise; and 
when it had performed its services in that department, he converted 
it into an instrument of personal attack. He broke it into two pieces, 
and it will be distinctly proved, that he came forward and took de¬ 
liberate aim at the lord lieutenant’s head; so good an aim, that it 
struck the cushion of the next box, and with such force, that it cut 
the cushion and rebounded on the stage. If it had taken effect, in 
all probability it would have put an end to his life. When I state 
that a bottle was thrown at the king’s representative, and that imple¬ 
ments of violence were flung at his person, such is the state of the 
public mind, that it is listened to as if it were a mere bagatelle, a 
jeu d’esprit, a trifle of v hicli the lord lieutenant need not take any 
notice, and which is below the attention of the government and the 
law officers. 

Why, gentlemen of the jury, are we awake ? Can we be insen-! 
sible to the effect of such occurrences upon the honour and safety of 
the country ? Can we reflect without indignation that such an out¬ 
rage should be committed in a civilized country against the person of 
his majesty’s representative, because he had the presumption, in op¬ 
position to a desperate gang, to execute the parting injunctions of 
the king, in a manner not calculated to give offence or excite ani¬ 
mosity ? The sentiments of the audience were roused ; some rushed 
up to the gallery. Graham first flung the heavy part of the rattle, 
and then the light. It will be produced to you. Forbes, as L 
have already stated, was a party to the entire system of the party, 
and was present at the sending the men from Daly’s to the gallery 
with bludgeons. He stationed them in the upper gallery at tHe.ii 
post. After the bottle and rattle had been thrown, he was observed: 
in the lattices or pigeon-holes, immediately adjoining the left side of 
the upper gallery, in which he had previously stationed the party; 
he was separated from them only by the spikes, dividing those twc 
parts of the house. He was seen actively encouraging the rioters; 
he held in his hand a whistle with which he sounded the alarm, and 
gave a signal which w^s answered through the whole house. He 




THE BOTTLE RIOT. 


2G9 


was asked by a magistrate, why he used the whistle, to which he 
replied, “for fun.” He was then arrested, but liberated on promise 
to give bail. It wall be proved that he went from the theatre to a 
tavern in Essex-street, kept by a person of the name of Flanagan. 
He and William Graham, one of the distributers of the bills, and 
who was active in the riot, William Brownlow, the Atkinsons, and 
others, went in a party to this public house. They communicated 
together as persons well acquainted with each other, and talked 
about what had passed at the theatre. Some one said to Brownlow, 
“ Why did not you go to your place in the gallery ?” He said he 
was as well where he was in the pit; and afterwards boasted of the 
share he had had in the business, saying, that others had not done 
so much. A conversation ensued as to the occurrences at the thea¬ 
tre. Forbes referred to the part he had taken. This conversation 
was overheard by two gentlemen, Mr. Farley, an attorney, and a 
Mr. Troy, who will be produced to you. Forbes spoke as a person 
conscious that he had committed a crime. He said he had only one 
life to lose, but that he was ready to sacrifice that for the accom¬ 
plishment of his one object. He was ready, he said, to go to Botany 
Bay, but that if he did, he would establish an Orange Lodge there. 
Nay, he said he would be willing to go to hell, but that one great 
drawback to his happiness there would be, that he was sure to meet 
a Papist in it. 

This is a specimen only of his sentiments; but, what is more ma¬ 
terial for our present purpose, he expressed his regret that the bottle 
had missed its aim, but he trusted and hoped that the next time their 
plan would be better laid, and the attempt be more effectual. Here, 
gentlemen, is a person engaged in planning the whole attack ; who 
collected bludgeons and ruffians to execute it, who directs violence 
against the lord lieutenant, and who, after his excellency’s life was 
endangered, expressed his regret, not that they went beyond their 
instructions, but that they had not executed them in their full extent. 
Ami now to justify myself in your opinion, and in that of the pub¬ 
lic, for the exercise of my discretion in this ex officio information 
by which I have been enabled for the first time to bring these facts 
before the public ? I ask any man who has a principle of candour 
or honesty in his composition, whether he is not bound to acquit me, 
,and whether I should not have basely betrayed the king whom T 
serve, and the office with which he has honoured me, if I suffered 
| public justice to be stifled and obstructed? When these transac¬ 
tions were brought under the consideration of the government, the 
law officers were consulted by the magistrates. We bestowed the 

s 





270 


plunket’s speeches. 


most patient attention and laborious investigation on the case; for 
five or six days we were occupied at this business ; every day some 
new light was thrown upon it, until it at length Assumed an aspect 
so formidable, as to lead us to the apprehension that his excellency’s 
life had been directly aimed at. When we learned that Forbes had 
avowed his approbation of the act; when after the conspiracy had 
shown itself in its most desperate effects, he expressed his regret at 
its failure, aud his determination to make another attempt more effec¬ 
tual—we felt, when called upon for our advice upon his application 
to be discharged, that we could not justify it to our conscience and 
our sworn duty, or to the respect due to the high personage aud 
illustrious character who had been offered at, if we had suffered him 
to go at large till we knew the whole of the transaction. There was 
at that time evidence, not only sufficient to warrant a grand jury 
for finding a bill for conspiracy to murder, but even for a petty jury, 
to found a verdict for conviction. It was one thing to consider the 
proper species of committal, and another in what way we should ulti¬ 
mately proceed. When that point came to be finally decided on, 
and we had reason to believe that the whole of the evidence was 
before us, our determination was not to proceed on the capital charge. 

It was infinitely better we should be censured for the tameness of 
our proceeding, than that we should be arraigned for its rigour. We 
felt that before we sent up an indictment containing a capital charge, 
we should be clearly satisfied that the primary object of the conspir¬ 
acy was to take away the life of the lord lieutenant, and that if any 
doubt rested on the case, it would be better to be blamed for the 
timidity and forbearance of the prosecution than exposed to the heavy , 
charge of exerting a rigour beyond the law ; we were glad to show 
in the instance of the most illustrious personage of the realm a strict 
observance of the law. What satisfied my mind against sending up 
a bill of indictment on a capital charge was this, that the object of 
driving the lord lieutenant by violence from the theatre, and from the 
country, though it involved the imminent hazard of the life of the 
lord lieutenant, was distinct from the notion of a conspiracy to 
murder him. When it clearly appeared that the object was to put 
down the lord lieutenant's government, and force him from the coun¬ 
try, although this plot involved in it an outrage on his person, I did 
not think that in n capital case a jury could be called upon to say 
that murder w'as the aim of the conspiracy. Under these circum¬ 
stances, therefore, we thought it right to seud up the indictments for 
the misdemeanors, which the grand jury have thrown out. 

The nature of these informations has already been laid before you. 


EX OFFICIO INFORMATIONS. 


571 


There are two distinct informations ; one is for a riot and the other 
for a conspiracy to riot. The counts vary; but in each there is 
alleged, first, a conspiracy to riot, and then a conspiracy to hoot, 
groan, hiss, and assault the lord lieutenant. In point of law, either 
or any part of these charges, if proved, will justify a verdict. I 
have no doubt of being able to prove the whole. I have stated this 
case without exaggeration against the traversers at the bar. I have 
no feelings in the discharge of my duty, except the desire faithfully 
to acquit myself of what I owe to my country and to my sovereign. 
I may have expressed myself with warmth, I hope not with intem¬ 
perance. But after I have disabused your minds of the ten thousand 
falsehoods which have been circulated on this subject, I feel it would 
be trifling with public justice to say, that this was the act of a few 
misguided ruffians, growing out of any sudden impulse. It is a 
proceeding originating with a gang within the limits of this city, 
associated for the purpose of putting down the king’s government, of 
driving the lord lieutenant from this country, and of showing that he 
has not the power, against their wishes and their authority, to dis¬ 
charge the duties belonging to his exalted station. 

The trial, with its long muster of witnesses and its eloquent array of counsel— 
an oration for each traverser—went on, and ended in a disagreement of the jury. 
The traversers were let out upon bail, Plunket threatening to prosecute again; 
but the proceedings were never revived. 


EX OFFICIO INFORMATIONS. — 

April 15, 1823. 

The umbrage excited among the Orange party by the high-handed manner in 
which Plunket had proceeded against the bottle-rioters soon vented itself in 
.pamphlet and speech, and Saurin, whose party spirit was seasoned by private 
spite, zealously fomented the attacks upon him.: I will quote Sheil’s sketch of 

( this feeling, of which he was a keen spectator. 

“ Saurin,” he says, 4 protested (and he is in the habit of enforcing his assevera¬ 
tions by appeals to the highest authority, and by the most solemn adjurations) 
that in his opinion the conduct of Mr. Plunket, in proceeding by ex officio in¬ 
formations, was the most flagrant violation of constitutional principle which had 
ever been attempted. He seemed to think that the genius of Jefferies had by a 
kind of political metempsychosis been restored in the person of William Con- 
yngham Plunket. He became so clamorous in his invocations to liberty, that 
he almost verified the parable in the Scriptures. The demon of Whiggism, after 
a long expulsion, seemed to have effected a re-entry into his spirit, and to have 
brought a seven-fold power along with it. He was much more raicorously 




272 


plunket’s speeches. 


liberal than he had ever been, even at the period of his hottest opposition to tha 
Union. Little did he think, in this sudden but not unaccountable paroxysm of 
constitutional emotion, that his own authority would be speedily produced as a 
precedent, and that his great rival would find a shelter under the shadow ot 
so eminent a name. It was not, however, to convivial declamations that his 
invectives were confined. The press was resorted to, and a pamphlet entitled 
‘ A year of Lord Wellesley’s Administration’ appeared. It was written with 
skill, but without power. It was destitute of real eloquence, but exhibited that 
species of dexterity which a veteran practitioner in Chancery might be expected 
to display. It was believed that if not actually written by Saurin, he supplied 
the materials. The poison was compounded by other hands. This book was a 
good deal read, but owed its circulation rather to the opinions which it incul¬ 
cated, than to the language in which they were conveyed. 

Having succeeded in exciting the public mind to an adequate tone of irrita¬ 
tion, Mr. Saurin resolved to push his attack into his enemy’s territory, and to 
invade him in the House of Commons. The selection which he made of one of 
his instruments for this purpose was a little singular. His oratory illustrates a 
phrase of the satirist, ‘ tenero supplantat verba palato.’ The spirit of Saurin, 
however, breathed some of its masculine natui-e into his soul, and he exhibited 
a sort of Amazon intrepidity in his encounter with Mr. Plunket. His coad¬ 
jutor was more appropriately chosen, and a certain noble lictor was felicitously 
selected for the scourging of the attorney .general.* That the latter was guilty 
of some indiscretion in revenging the affront which was offered to the viceregal 
dignity, his firmest advocates do not now dispute. He was probably actuated 
by an honest desire to pierce into and disclose the penetralia of Orangeism, but 
this object he might perhaps have attained without committing the rioters for 
high treason against the representative majesty of the noble marquis. He lent 
himself not a little to the personal exasperation of that distinguished nobleman. 
Lord Wellesley regarded the bottle affair not only as a violation of his honour, 
but as an attempt upon his life.” 

The attack, as Sheil states, was led by Mr. Brownlow, who, on the 15th of 
April, moved:— 

“ That it appears to this house that the conduct of his Majesty’s attorney- 
general for Ireland, with respect to the persons charged with a riot in the 
Dublin theatre, on the 14th of December last, particularly in bringing them to 
trial upon informations filed ex officio after bills of indictment against them for 
the same offence had been thrown out by a grand jury, was unwise; that it 
was contrary to the practice, and nor congenial to the spirit of the British con-, 
stitution; and that it ought not to be drawn into a precedent hereafter.” 


Mr. Plunket said, that in rising on such an occasion as the pre¬ 
sent, the house would naturally suppose that he felt some degree of 
embarrassment. He had listened with great attention to the speech 
of the honourable gentleman. Many of the observations which had 
fallen from him were entitled to his entire approbation, and, allowing 




* Mr. Charles Brownlow (the late Lord Lurgan) was the leader of the par¬ 
liamentary attack upon Mr. Plunket. The “ noble lictor” was Colonel Barry, 
au officer of militia, and representative of the county of Cavan. He succeeded 
to the barony of Farnham upon the death of hi 3 cousin, the fourth baron, in 
July, 1323. 








EX OFEICTO INFORMATIONS- 


273 


for some undue warmth which had characterised a portion of his 
speech, he was rather disposed to thank than to blame the honour¬ 
able member for the temper in which he had brought forward this 
subject. But, at the same time that the honourable member had 
entitled himself to this acknowledgment, he could not but observe 
that he had indulged himself, in a very considerable degree of lati¬ 
tude, in the charge which he had felt it his duty to bring against the* 
individual who now addressed the house. He could not help com¬ 
plaining, that when the honourable member brought forward a spe¬ 
cific charge against him for having filed an ex officio information, 
after a bill of indictment had been ignored by the grand jury, he 
should have endeavoured, by all the powers of his eloquence, to in¬ 
volve him (Mr. P.) in all the odium which attached to the system 
of ex officio informations in general. The argument of the honour¬ 
able member went the length of arraigning the power of the crow a 
to file ex officio informations in all cases, whether through its law 
officer or the Court of the King’s Bench. The honourable member had 
contended, that a grand jury was the constitutional barrier between 
the prosecutions of the crown and the safety of the subject; but, if 
it were essential to the safety of the subject that a party should in 
no case be put upon his trial without the intervention of a grand 
jury, the whole system of informations must fall to the ground. If 
the proceeding by information were odious, illegal, and unconstitu¬ 
tional, he (Mr. P.) was not liable to the charge of having imported 
it from Ireland; for among all the institutions incorporated into the 
law of this country, there were none of more unquestioned antiquity 
and admitted legality than the proceeding by information. If such 
a proceeding were opposed to the genius of our free constitution, it 
was somewhat extraordinary that it should not have been abolished 
in the lapse of a thousand years. He would admit, that no length of 
antiquity could sanction a practice which could be shown to be 
wrong but he must think it somewhat hard; that he should be 
selected as the object of censure, and that his conduct should be 
compared with that of Sir George Jefferies, of infamous memory— 
with that of Empson and Dudley, and all persons who had inflicted 
misery on their country, and whose acts had brought down vengeance 
on their own heads. It was rather too hard that the accumulated 
odium of a thousand years should be reserved for this day, and 
thundered on his devoted head. The honourable member had con¬ 
tended, that the functions and privileges of a grand jury were im¬ 
peached by this proceeding. It was impossible that anything could 
be more eloquent, or more calculated to excite an auditory, than the 






274 


plunket’s speeches. 


observations of the honourable gentleman. He had touched a string 
which could not fail to vibrate. But, to what extent did the hon¬ 
ourable gentleman mean to lay down the principle. Did he mean to 
say, that no criminal proceeding could be instituted without the in¬ 
tervention of a grand jury ? He admitted that the functions of a 
grand jury ought not to be called in question, nor could any public 
functionary be guilty of a more gross breach of decorum than by 
vilifying a grand jury for the exercise of that discretion with which 
the constitution had invested him. But, was there anything in his 
(Mr. P.’s) conduct which would justify a comparison with that of 
the odious Jefferies ? When the grand jury returned their verdict, 
he was free to say, that he, in common with the court and auditors, 
was filled with astonishment, and that he did say on that occasion— 
“ They have a duty to discharge within their province on their 
oaths, and they have exercised their discretion; I also have a duty 
to discharge, and, with the blessing of God, I will discharge it fear¬ 
lessly and honestly!” After hearing all the arguments which had 
been urged against him, he did not feel that he had been guilty of 
anything that was inconsistent with the law and constitution of the 
country. He would put it to the candour of the honourable mem¬ 
ber whether it was fair to couple any observations upon his conduct, 
with a reference to the filthy and disgusting Billingsgate which 
flowed from the lips of Sir G. Jefferies, when he reprimanded 
the grand jury, and sent them back a second and a third time ? 
But, said the honourable gentleman, though Jefferies sent the grand 
jury back a second and a third time, he did not venture to file an 
ex officio information. The reason why Jefferies did not proceed to 
this extremity had not occurred to the honourable gentleman, but it 
was a very simple one ; Jefferies was not then attorney-general, but 
chief justice of the Court of King’s Bench, and had no more right to 
file an ex officio information than the honourable gentleman had. 

Another ground of complaint against the honourable gentleman 
was, that it was utterly impossible to collect the extent of the charge 
which he had brought against him. The honourable gentleman had 
introduced a charge unconnected with the present question ; namely, 
that of his (Mr. P’s) having advised the committal of the parties for 
a capital offence, who were afterwards prosecuted only for a misde¬ 
meanor. This question had been already disposed of by the house, 
nor was there, in point of fact, any evidence to show that the parties 
were committed at his (Mr. P.’s) desire. The honourable member 
had brought forward a motion for censure, without any evidence to 
support it, but he would not act so unworthy a part as to shelter 


EX OFFICIO INFORMATIONS. 


275 


himself behind the total want of evidence. The magistrates who 
committed those individuals were responsible for their own act, and 
there was no evidence that they had resorted to his (Mr. P.’s) advice. 
He would frankly avow, however, that the magistrates did resort to 
his advice. The honourable member said, he had been assured by 
high legal authority, that no man ought to be committed on a capital 
charge, unless there was irresistible evidence of his guilt. He begged 
to say that no such irresistible evidence was necessary to warrant a 
committal upon a capital charge. In the present case, he had held 
himself Itound to advise the committal upon a capital charge, although 
he did not think it advisable to follow it up by a capital prosecution. 
The information upon which he had advised the committal had not 
been laid before the house. It had been very properly withheld; not 
for the purpose of screening himself, but for the purpose of protecting 
the magistrates. He, however, was perfectly ready to meet the 
honourable member, and to state the grounds upon which he had 
given that advice. He was perfectly ready to state again the grounds 
upon which he had acted; and he felt it due to his own character 
and honour to show that he had not subjected any man to the depri¬ 
vation of his liberty, on hasty, light, or insufficient grounds. When 
the parties had first been taken up, they had been committed upon 
the charge of misdemeanor. He (Mr. P.) had at that time only 
heard the circumstances attending the riot; and, although he had 
thought them daringly outrageous, he had not thought that they 
amounted to what would constitute a capital charge. Some persons 
in the theatre had done that which endangered the life of the lord 
lieutenant; but he had not seen anything to warrant his believing 
that there had been a conspiracy to take away the life of the lord 
lieutenant. In the course, however, of the seven days’ examination 
which followed, facts had come out which tended to show that the 
riot had been the result of premeditation, and that the person who 
had been the principal agent in the conspiracy, and who had assisted 
in packing the house for the purpose of making the riot, had con¬ 
nected himself with the attack upon the person of the lord lieutenant. 
It had been attempted to throw ridicule upon that attack, through 
the implements with which it had been made. It was easy to make 
jokes upon a rattle or a bottle; but neither a rattle nor a bottle 
would be a very pleasant joke, if flung at the head of any honourable 
gentleman. If that bottle had struck the lord lieutenant on the 
head, instead of striking the cushion of the box in which he sat, it 
would in all probability have taken away his life. And what fol¬ 
lowed the throwing of these weapons ? Why, Mr. Forbes at once 


276 


plun£et*s speeches. 


expressed bis regret that they had missed. One of the oifenaet'* 
declared that they were determined to hazard their lives for the at¬ 
tainment of their object, and hoped, on another opportunity, that 
they should be more successful. It was said that this man was 
infuriated with drink, and that he should not be made responsible 
for words so inconsiderately spoken. But, the same intemperauce, 
the same uncontrolled fury of passion, which allowed him to use 
these expressions against the lord lieutenant, might prompt him to 
deeds which would put the life of his excellency in peril; and he 
(Mr. P.) would not have discharged his duty, if he had no* advised 
that the parties should be held in custody until full deliberation upon 
the proper mode of prosecution could be had. Accordingly, three 
persons were arrested; the man who flung the bottle, the man who 
flung the rattle, and the man who had made use of the expressions 
before mentioned. 

There was one thing to which he would entreat the attention of the 
house, and particularly that of the country gentlemen ; and that was 
the state of the law and the practice with regard to grand juries. He 
trusted he should be able to satisfy the house, that it was no novel, 
violent, or unconstitutional thing to question their decisions. He 
hoped to be able to show that there was nothing in it so very hostile 
to freedom, or so adverse to the spirit of the constitution as had 
been alleged. In doing this, he would, in the first place, point out 
that trials upon information were really the law. This was the more 
necessary, not only on account of what had been said by the honour¬ 
able gentleman, but ou account of what had been detailed in news¬ 
papers, and taken up and repeated till the ears of the country had 
rung again. On this account he felt it necessary to go at some 
length into the proof of the legality. In the first place, there was no 
point of the law more clear than this, that the ignoring of a bill by 
a grand jury was no bar to subsequent proceedings by indictment. 
Nay, the bill might be again and again sent to the grand jury, and 
again and again ignored, toties quoties. It might be questioned by 
the same grand jury or another, and from this it was evident that 
the verdict of a grand jury was not a sacred thing. In the next 
place, he hoped he would be able to show, that the method of pro¬ 
ceeding by indictment upon information was as old as the constitu¬ 
tion, and, as such, formed part of the constitution itself; that it 
formed a part of the general administration of justice as much as 
anything else which belonged to that administration; and not only 
tnui, but the reason was distinctly assigned; namely, to guard the 
crown and the public against the delects of the administration o* 


EX OFFICIO INFORMATIONS. 


277 


justice. Before the revolution, this power of filing informations was 
assigned to two officers—the king’s attorney-general and the master 
of the crown office. The attorney-general exerted it for offences 
which were peculiarly against the king’s person or government. The 
master of the crown office exerted it for the prosecution of offences 
of a lower degree, which were not so easily rendered amenable to 
the ordinary process of law. Each of these officers was at liberty 
to exert the right of tiling informations ; their power was co-existent; 
one of them could do it to the same extent as the other; nor had 
one of them greater authority than the other. This was the case 
down to the time of the revolution. The honourable member had 
referred to this power, as if it were a remnant of the jurisdiction of 
the star-chamber, so justly odious. Whereas, at the abolition of the 
star-chamber tribunal, a period remarkable for the constitutional jea¬ 
lousy of parliament, it had been expressly stipulated, that nothing in 
those proceedings should impeach the right of the crown to proceed 
in particular offences by filing informations. This of itself proved, 
that the power, even in the period of the greatest jealousy as to the 
liberties of the country, was held to be quite compatible with the 
constitution. The right of the crown had been exercised in the man¬ 
ner he had before described, down to the period of the revolution. 
The act of the 4th and 5th William and Anne introduced some new 
regulations. In the debates upon that act, the mode of proceeding 
by information was brought into question. Some members were, of 
opinion, that it would be a good thing to get rid of it altogether. 
Repeated conferences were held upon the subject; and especially upon 
that part of it which related to informations consequent upon parlia¬ 
mentary proceedings. The act at length passed, by which the power 
before enjoyed by the master of the crown office was brought under 
very considerable restraints, and that officer was disabled from pro¬ 
ceeding by information, except under the permission of the Court of 
King’s Bench, to which he must address his application under affi¬ 
davit. But the power of the attorney-general was reserved unmo¬ 
lested, and was to exist in just the same extent as before the passing 
of the act; and therefore the attorney-general must be considered 
as having the same power and discretion in proceeding by informa¬ 
tion, as the master of the crown office had before the statute of Wil¬ 
liam. The act gave the attorney-general no power which was not 
enjoyed by the master of the crown office. It did not enlarge the 
jurisdiction of the King’s Bench in any degree. He prayed the house 
then to attend to the direct and reasonable inference. If the attorney- 
general had a power co-extensive with that of the master of the 


278 


plunket’s speeches. 




crown office before the passing of the statute, so he must be held, as 
far as the right of filing informations went, to hold a power co¬ 
extensive with that of the Court of King’s Bench. At any rate, thi3 
could not be disputed with him in regard to that class of informa¬ 
tions which went to prosecute offences against the state. If this 
were not admitted, they would be driven to the monstrous conclusion, 
that before the statute of William, the master of the crown office had 
greater power and authority than the attorney-general, a proposition 
much too wide for discussion; and therefore he would not involve 
the house in it. He thought he might safely assume that the^attor-. 
ney-general enjoyed this power in a concurrent degree with the Court 
of King’s Bench, and that he was at liberty to proceed by information 
or indictment, according to his discretion. He appealed to the pro¬ 
fessional members, if there was a single case in the books which 
affected to establish a difference, as to the rule of law, between pro¬ 
ceedings by indictment and by information. It was the clear and 
established principle of law, that no subject could be called on to 
plead to, or be tried for, the same offence twice. But there was 
no protection from further proceedings until after the trial. Now, 
the presentment before a grand jury was no trial; it was only a pro¬ 
ceeding towards putting the defendant on his trial; and therefore 
he must show, not the decision of a grand jury, but the acquittal by 
a petty jury. He defied any lawyer to show that the application of 
the principle had ever admitted any distinction between proceedings 
by indictment and by information. Ignoring the bill was no bar to 
a new prosecution either way ; nor anything short of an acquittal 
by a tribunal competent to try the information. 

To establish these points, he had had recourse to that place where 
alone it was possible to come at the precedents which guided him ; 
and he would now proceed to state what were the results of that in¬ 
vestigation. The case had all along been treated as if it were some¬ 
thing quite new to have recourse to an information after the ignor¬ 
ing of an indictment, and as if he had acted in a manner highly in¬ 
decorous in making any remark on, or attempting any opposition to, 
the finding of the grand jury. The house would see how this as¬ 
sumption accorded with the fact. The crown office had been searched, 
and he was now to inform the house what was the result. The first 
case was, the “ King against Hope” (Trinity Term, 8 and 9 George 
2nd). The motion was tor an information on a charge of trespass 
and assault. It was insisted in the defence, among other things, 
that the prosecutor had already proceeded by indictment, which was 
ignored by the grand jury. This was the very case on which they 


EX OFFICIO INFORMATIONS. 


279 


were now at issue. Yet there was no condemnation on those who 
questioned the exercise of these functions by the grand jury—there 
was no complaint of throwing a slur or attempting to discredit them. 
It had been asked, was it not most unjust to impeach the conduct of 
those who, being sworn to secrecy, could not be allowed to explain. 
This, if true, was equally applicable to the Court of King’s Bench. 
But the fact was, that neither the court nor the grand jury were 
called on for a defence. The question was not between the court 
and the jury, but between the criminal and the public—whether 
offenders should be allowed to escape through a failure in the exer¬ 
cise of the functions of grand juries or not. The defendant in the 
case before-named pleaded that an indictment which had been pre¬ 
sented was ignored. The answer given by the court was, that the 
ignoring of the bill was the very reason why the information should 
be granted ; and that it was one of the great privileges of the sub¬ 
ject to be secured, by this mode of proceeding, from the loss of his 
just remedy on cases where, from little party heats and local irrita¬ 
tions, that was likely to happen; and this was assented to per 
totam curiam. It appeared from the report that the grand jury 
attempted to send the witnesses away ; that they were unwilling to 
ask them any questions, and appeared to wish to turn the whole 
matter into ridicule. Here was not only the case of passing by the 
decision of the grand jury, but the particular grounds of conduct in 
the grand jury were also alleged. Here were reasons given which 
went beyond the statement just now made by the honourable mem¬ 
ber. And who said this ? He could assure the house he was not 
using the words of Judge Jefferies, nor of Empson or Dudley; 
nor of any other of the odious authorities with whom he had 
been compared. This was the decision of Lord Hardwicke, in 
which it was declared that the a;tainmeut of justice was not 
to be frustrated through little party heats and local irritations. 
The next case to which he would allude was that of the King against 
Thorpe. This was a prosecution for a nuisance. In this case it 
was alleged that an ignoramus had been returned by the grand jury. 
This was not a case in which there were political ferments, and in 
which the jury had got into little party heats; yet Mr. Bearcroft 
said there was reason for filing the information, and Lord Mansfield 
made the rule absolute, upon the ground that some of the grand 
jury had. been influenced in favour of Thorpe. The next case was 
that of the present king against the inhabitants of Berks, in the 
matter of the repairing of a bridge. From the affidavits, it appeared 
that this case had been sent to the grand jury, and had been ignored. 


280 


plunket’s speeches. 


A second presentment was made, when Lord Folkestone was in the 
chair. This was again ignored ; and it was presented a third time, 
when Mr. Dundas was in the chair ; and it was a third time ignored, 
upon which an information was filed. He hoped he had now ad¬ 
duced cases enough to prevent the notion from becoming universal, 
that the inoculation of this obnoxious right had not been communi¬ 
cated by him; that the taint to the constitution could not be of his 
giving, but that it was as old at least as the time of Lord Hard- 
wicke. Now, if in this country it was necessary to have a check 
over the local heats and the misconduct of grand juries, he would 
appeal to the house whether it would be safe that a similar check 
should be withdrawn in Ireland ? He had looked over files of the 
records of the courts in that country, and he had found no fewer 
than thirteen cases since the year 1795,* and these had had the sanc¬ 
tion of Lord Clanwilliam, Lord Kihvarden, and Chief Baron Downes. 
The first to which he would allude was in February, 1795, and it 
was for perjury. Some of the other cases were trivial, but if in the 
strong ones there was misconduct, that was sufficient to establish the 
necessity of the right. In another case, the grand jury of West¬ 
meath had thrown out the bill; and the affidavit stated that this 
had been done by the address of one of the grand jury. He would 
pass over the other cases, except two, which were valuable; inas¬ 
much as the affidavits upon which the informations were filed con¬ 
tained no charge of misconduct. These cases were, the King against 
Paterson, and the King against Crawford, and they were both for 
sending letters with a view to provoke challenges, and in neither of 
them was any accusation made against the grand jury, further than 
that they had ignored the bills by some influence unknown to the 
deponent. He should trouble the house with one more case, the 
more important as it referred to the very grand jury who had ignored 
the bills preferred by him. What would the house think when he 
informed them that at that very hour a conditional order of the 
Court of King’s Bench of Ireland existed, to set aside the finding of 
that very grand jury, on the ground of misconduct at the very same 
sessions ? He had the copies of the affidavits on which that condi¬ 
tional rule was granted; but as the case was still pending, he felt 
some difficulty as to the manner of expressing himself from a reluc¬ 
tance to mention names. The affidavits allege the misconduct of the 
grand jury as the ground for setting aside their finding. The bill 
on which they found ignoramus charged A. and B. with a conspi¬ 
racy to defraud a third party. A. got B. to make oath that he 
had received a sum of money for the purpose of defeating the claim 


EX OFFICIO INFORMATIONS. 


231 


cf C. Two witnesses were examined. The grounds of misconduct, 
as alleged in the affidavits, were, first, the refusal to receive a letter 
of one of the accused, because they would have nothing to do with 
a written document; and next, that they would not admit con¬ 
spiracy, because the witnesses would not swear that the parties com¬ 
mitted perjury. The interrogatories were curious. “ Did poor 
M‘Mahon,” said the jury (that was not the real name), “ to your 
knowledge commit peijury.” Witness—“No, the charge is for 
conspiracy.” The witness was then shown the door, and the bill 
was ignored. 

He had now concluded his reference to cases, and should next 
apply himself to the argument that was drawn from the want of pre¬ 
cedent. He had been asked, if he was justified in the course he had 
taken ; where were his precedents ? Where, he would ask, in all 
the cases he had alluded to, could they have looked for a record ? 
The truth was, that where, after a bill being ignored, an attorney- 
general subsequently filed an ex officio information, it was impossible 
that, either on the information, the evidence, or the defence, the find¬ 
ing could be found; as it was wholly immaterial to all. When, 
therefore, he was asked for precedents, his answer was, that from 
the nature of the question, it was impossible to produce them. And 
yet the honourable mover had been pleased to taunt him with hav¬ 
ing pursued a course for which he could produce no precedent in the 
history of the country. Every man acquainted with the subject was 
aware, that it was rarely that an attorney-general felt it necessary to 
seek the intervention of a grand jury. He had, however, in the 
present instance, deviated from the custom, and made a reference to 
that “ constitutional barrierbut, after the lesson that had been 
read to him, he was free to confess that he did not feel much disposed 
to repeat the application. No man would deny that the treatment 
the king’s representative received at the theatre at Dublin, was of 
that marked character, as to have justified his majesty’s attorney- 
general in having recourse to the habitual practice of both countries, 
and filing an ex officio information. What, then, was his crime ? 
Not that he had tiled such an information, but that he had gone to 
a grand jury. It was for this crime that he had been assailed with 
all the lightning of the honourable mover’s eloquence; it was for 
this that all the terrors of the violated constitution had been arrayed 
against him. But it was said, “ it was a mockery to go to a grand 
jury, unless you were determined to abide by their finding.” Such 
an observation was inconsistent with the first principles of justice, 
Jle could, were it necessary, refer to cases where it was laid dowq 


282 


PLUNKET'S SPEECHES. 


by judges on the bench, that, with the view of saving expense to 
parties in the country, the reference to a grand jury in the first in¬ 
stance was desirable. But he could easily suppose a case where an 
attorney-general would feel a desire to have his own judgment 
backed by the opinion of a jury of sound and honest men. Was it 
therefore to be concluded, that if that functionary had reasons to know 
that, in place of that sound and honest opinion, the case submitted 
to that jury had been decided under sinister and improper feelings, 
he was therefore to allow the principles of justice to be defeated— 
that he was bound by a step in the pursuit of justice, to allow the 
ends of justice to be subverted ? He would suppose the case of a 
grand jury, who, when a number of witnesses were introduced for 
examination, placed their hands on their ears, and threw their legs 
across, in evident demonstration of the determination to pay no atten¬ 
tion—would any man, under such circumstances, assert that the 
principles of justice were satisfied? If, in addition to this, it could 
be shown, that the finding of such a grand jury was wholly dispro¬ 
portionate to the evidence produced before it, would any sound mind 
venture to pronounce that such a jury had arrived at a legitimate de¬ 
cision ? Admit the opposite inference, and what must be the conse¬ 
quence ? It would be this—that the very constitutional barrier, em¬ 
phatically dwelt upon by the honourable mover, and with the viola¬ 
tion of which he (Mr. P.) was accused, would become inoperative. 
If while it was open to the subject, redress was refused to the crown, 
no future attorney-general would venture to go before a grand jury; 
and thus by the very argument of the advocate of that great consti¬ 
tutional security, all its valuable results would be lost to the sub¬ 
ject. It was, perhaps, unnecessary to state, that after the finding 
of a grand jury, the crown could obtain no redress from the Court of 
King’s Bench. The language of the court was, that u We will not 
do it, because you, the king’s attorney, can do it yourself*” If, there¬ 
fore, it was illegal, after a grand jury had ignored a bill, for an at¬ 
torney-general to file his information, to the king would be denied a 
right of redress, to which the meanest subject was entitled. The 
right honourable gentleman then proceeded to read from Burrow’s 
K. ports, cases in which the Court of King’s Bench had refused to 
interfere with the finding of a grand jury where the crown was a 
party, on the very ground that its interference was unnecessary, as 
the king’s attorney possessed the power. With respect to the case 
of Moore, he should first say, that it was by accident, and from the 
peculiarity of the circumstances which arose out of it, that it was 
possible to cite it as a precedent. The grand jury had, in that in- 



EX OFFICIO INFORMATIONS. 


283 


stance, found the bill where they intended to find ignoramus. They 
subsequently made affidavits, stating it to be a clerical error, and 
with the hope of being allowed to rectify it. The court refused the 
application. The attorney-general, unwilling to put the party on his 
trial after such an admission from the jury, quashed the indictment, 
by issuing a noli prosequi. He then filed his information ex officio, 
The circumstances excited considerable public attention ; the notice 
of parliament had been attracted to it. After an examination of the 
question, parliament petitioned for the removal of the judge (tha 
house would mark that fact), while no complaint whatever was even 
suggested against the attorney-general, for filing his information. 
Here, then, he might rest his defence, did he not know that far more 
important considerations demanded of him to show, that in the case 
of the Dublin grand jury, had he acquiesced in their finding, the 
ends of public justice would have been defeated. He would first 
apply himself to the finding. It appeared from the papers, only that 
night presented to the house, that thirteen witnesses had been exa¬ 
mined before that grand jury, exclusively of other witnesses produced 
on the trial of the traversers. He had no hesitation in saying, 
that any impartial person, looking at the evidence, would at once 
declare that there was no part of that bill of indictment, whether it 
referred to the conspiracy, to the riot, or to the assault, that was 
not completely and demonstratively proved. There was no sound 
mind that would not admit that the men who could have brought 
themselves to such a conclusion as the Dublin grand jury had, could 
not have arrived at it by legitimate means. It had been distinctly 
proved, that a plan had been formed to commit a riot; that in fur¬ 
therance of that plan, a number of persons assembled at the theatre; 
that a missile had been thrown by Graham ; that Forbes had gone 
the day before to the theatre to buy tickets for the purpose of pack¬ 
ing an aucfence—that Forbes was taken with the whistle in his hand 
with whiclHie incited the rioters ; that at a subsequent meeting at 
a tavern, he had expressed his concern at the failure of their pur¬ 
pose, and his hopes of success on a future occasion. Yet, with such 
evidence, the grand jury ignored the bill. He would candidly put 
the house in possession of what he felt to be the impressions under 
which that jury acted. It was his conviction—a conviction which he 
felt with all the force of a moral certainty—that they, the grand jury, 
conceived the plan of these rioters to be a very right and proper plan. 
They conceived that, when the lord lieutenant, in compliance with 
the expressed desires of his sovereign, had exerted himself to concili¬ 
ate the various classes of the Irish people, and to put an end to the 


284 


plunket’s speeches. 


heart-burnings which had so long embittered that community, it was 
extremely proper and lawful, that certain persons, whom, for some¬ 
thing or for nothing, he (Mr. P.) had designated as a “gang,”should 
seize the first opportunity that presented itself, for marking their 
powerful disapprobation of such an acquiescence in the express com¬ 
mands of his majesty. To that extent they felt it highly proper the 
opposition should proceed ; though they were not prepared to go the 
length of thinking that it was right to fling bottles and rattles at his 
majesty’s representative. That, in his conscience, he believed to be 
the decided conviction of the grand jury—a conviction, he also be¬ 
lieved, which the greater portion of the Dublin corporation did not 
consider erroneous. Such, indeed, was the statement of one of the 
counsel, who, on the subsequent trial, defended the traversers. It 
was, however, not the opinion of the chief justice who tried them ; 
from whose charge he would read a short extract: 

“ Before I proceed to sum up the evidence, it will be necessary for 
me to examine a doctrine asserted by the traverser’s counsel, in oppo¬ 
sition to what I have announced as the opinion of the court upon 
the law of the case. It has been insisted that in a public theatre, 
any man has a right to disturb and terrify the audience by expres¬ 
sing his censure or approbation of public and political characters; 
that such right has been constantly exercised and enjoyed in the 
theatres of both countries; and that such a disturbance of the peace, 
under such circumstances, loses its illegal character, and becomes 
excusable. There is no such right. It is a position not founded in 
point of law. If allowed to go abroad uncontradicted, it would be 
productive of the most dangerous consequences. The rights of an 
audience at a theatre are perfectly well defined. They may cry down 
a play or other performance which they dislike, or they may hiss or 
hoot the actors who depend on their approbation, or their caprice. 
Even that privilege, however, is confined within its limits.^hey must 
not break the peace, or act in such a manner as has a tendency to ex¬ 
cite terror or disturbance. Their censure or approbation, although it 
may be noisy, must not be riotous. That censure or approbation must 
be the expression of the feelings of the moment. For, if it be premedi¬ 
tated by a number of persons confederated beforehand to cry down even 
a performance or an actor, it becomes criminal. Such are the limits 
of the privileges of an audience, even as to actors and authors. But 
if their censorial power were to be extended to public or political 
characters, it would turn the theatre into a den of factious rioters, 
instead of a place of cultivated amusement, or, as some conceive, of 
pjorai improvement. What public man in any department would 


EX OFFICIO INFORMATIONS. 


285 


himself go, or would take his family to a theatre, if he were to incur 
the risk of being hissed or insulted by a rabble, instigated by ruf¬ 
fians, exasperated perhaps against him by the- discharge of some pub¬ 
lic duty ? We are, therefore, anxious to disabuse you as to this topic, 
which has perhaps not unjustifiably been used by the counsel for the 
traversers, but which we are bound to discountenance; and to tell 
you, that no length of time during which licentiousness may have 
remained unpunished can be sufficient to sanction so mischievous a 
pretension, or protect it from the reprehension of a court of justice.” 

Such was the view of the law as taken by the chief justice of the 
King’s Bench. Such was not the view of the law taken by the Dub¬ 
lin grand jury. They, in their wisdom, thought the public conduct 
of the king’s representative a fit and proper subject of animadver¬ 
sion and outrage at a public theatre. When they had ignored the 
bills, they had determined to throw their protection around those 
who had seized the first occasion of showing that the experiment of 
governing the people of Ireland under the protection of equal laws, 
was a dangerous experiment to him who had the virtue and the 
courage to try it; they had determined to give a decisive proof that 
in Ireland there was a power hostile to its population, and superior 
to the throne itself. It was in opposition to such feelings and such 
a determination that he appealed to the law, as the functionary of 
the crown. Were he even on the ground of form to be made the 
object of the censure of that house, the principles on which he had 
acted would nevertheless be to him the source of unceasing consola¬ 
tion. It had been said, that he had no right to justify himself for 
the course he had pursued by any reference to what the evidence 
on the subsequent trial disclosed. To that he must reply, that if 
any man found the conclusion to which he had arrived borne out 
by results, he was entitled to refer to those results, in order to prove 
the propriety of the course he had adopted. What, then, was made 
manifest on that trial ? It was proved, that a plan had been con¬ 
certed at a meeting of an Orange lodge. It was with reluctance he 
introduced Orangeism into the discussion. He had lived many years 
in the city of Dublin, and in habits of intercourse with very respect¬ 
able persons, supposed to be attached to such associations, and never 
in his life had he had any altercation with them. I have, however, 
(said Mr. Plunket) ever deprecated their existence. I hold them to be 
illegal, and subject to the penalties of the statute law. I consider 
an association, bound by a secret oath, to be extremely dangerous 
on the principles of the common law; inasmuch as they subtract the 
subject from the state, and interpose between him and his allegiance 


286 


PLUNKET S SPEECHES, 


to the king. As an exclusively religious association, their unequi¬ 
vocal tendency is, to defeat the power to govern by equal laws, and 
to keep the various classes of the population in a state of positive 
war. The natural consequence of their existence has been, and must 
be, to produce exclusive Catholic associations, equally hostile to good 
government, each arrayed against the other, and both against the 
law. As a public officer of the constitution, I have felt it to be my 
duty to enforce the law against Catholic secret associations. From 
that duty, when circumstances called for its exercise, I have never 
shrunk. But how should I reflect upon my own actions, if I were 
capable of visiting with the terrors of the law the one class of the 
community, while I shrunk from its application to the other ? It is 
the system of Orauge associations that places the Protestants of Ire¬ 
land in imminent danger. The support of the Protestant is in the 
law. 

It was only when he stepped beyond the precincts of law, and 
challenged the population of Ireland to hostility, that he endangered 
his safety and risked the security of the establishment. It is because 
I wish well to that establishment that I deprecate the existence of 
Orange societies. But, to suppose that I could descend from my rank 
and character in society to prostitute both, through rancour against 
any party, is an imputation of which I feel myself to be undeserving. 
If my life and character is not a shield against such a suspicion, no 
defence that I can offer would be entitled to the attention of this 
house. 

To return to the evidence: it was proved that five persons, one of 
them enjoying a lucrative office in the post-office, had arranged the 
outrage against the lord lieutenant. They had determined to give 
a proof of the unpopularity of his administration, on the first oppor¬ 
tunity. The visit of his excellency to the theatre furnished that 
opportunity. When apprised of that intention, it was determined 
by the rioters to drive him from the theatre, and by such a manifes¬ 
tation of opinion to compel him to desist from the course of rule 
that he had followed. It was to be remarked, that whatever private 
opinions the lord lieutenant might entertain on certain questions, he 
had abstained from mixing them up with his public acts. It did so 
happen, that from the control of events, without any reference to 
inclination or otherwise, he had not conferred a single office on a 
Roman Catholic from the commencement of his government. His 
offence was, that he had endeavoured to give effect to the mandate of 
the king. And yet, these were loyal, very loyal men, who assaulted 
the king’s representative ! On the trial it was proved by witnesses, 


EX OFFICIO INFORMATIONS. 


287 


and enforced by counsel, that there was not a more loyal subject to 
the king than Mr. Forbes, who packed the audience. Loyal no 
doubt he was, most loyal—so long as the king governed his subjects 
in the way that Mr. Forbes approved. In that acceptation of the 
word, there were not more attached members of the community than 
the Orange lodges of Ireland. And truly loyal, and most estimable 
in every consideration, they would prove themselves, would they but 
throw aside the follies of their secret associations. But it was the 
inevitable consequence of associations which confounded the respec¬ 
table part of society with the low and the turbulent, that the first, 
by the unnatural connexion, lost their superiority and influence, while 
the other were emboldened in their violence. To resume his narra¬ 
tive : the theatre was packed; persons were sent to occupy different 
parts of it, whose admission was purchased, and who were inflamed 
with ardent spirits, according to the arrangement of Forbes, who 
went himself into the lattices, or upper-boxes, to keep up a commu¬ 
nication with the rioters, who were to act under his direction. When 
such were the facts which had been established by evidence, was he 
not right in his opinion that the grand jury had acted upon a false 
principle in coming to the conclusion which they had done ? The 
honourable member had called on him, on the supposition of a variety 
of facts which had nothing to do with the motion. He had not, 
however, made out his case. While he (Mr. P.) had not only grounds 
for impeaching the decision of the grand jury, but also the manner 
in which it had been impannelled. He had reason to know tiiat 
the sheriff was related to two of the traversers, in the close affinity 
of first cousin. This, had he known it at the time, would have been 
ground of challenge to the array. He had also in evidence upon 
oath, that the sheriff declared that the traversers need not be afraid 
of the result of the trial, as he had a list of Orangemen for the jury 
in his pocket. Another circumstance would show the spirit in 
which the grand jury was empannelled. There was a person named 
Poole, who was desirous of serving on the grand jury. The sheriff 
promised him previously to the riot, that he should be on the jury ; 
but, after the riot, he found that his name was not on the list, and 
when the sheriff was applied to on the subject, he said, “ Do you 
suppose I would allow a man to be on the grand jury, who said he 
would abide by the king’s letter ?” He (Mr. P.) did not mean by 
such statement to inculpate the members of which the grand jury was 
composed. It was, indeed, a gross impropriety in the sheriff, if he 
selected jurors under manifest prejudice ; but as to the jurors them¬ 
selves, they were not perhaps aware of the prejudice, or if they were 


258 


plunket’s speeches. 


they would forego it. There was another objection to the mode of 
empannelling the jury. "When he found that a whole day had passed 
without finding the bills, he procured the panels of the five preced¬ 
ing years. He found on inspection that there were from about 70 
to 100 on each panel, and that on calling the panel it was with diffi¬ 
culty the requisite number of the jury was made up after calling the 
whole list. In the present instance the number was only about 50, 
of which there were about 26 names that he did not find on any 
other panel, and the whole number attended, w r ith the exception of 
two or three ; they answered in regular order, and before the 26th 
name was called the jury was completed. He would put it to the 
candour of the house if he would have been justified in going back 
with the case to such a grand jury. He would ask the honourable 
member himself this question, as a man of honour, and he was sure 
he would answer it fairly. He’would put it to the candour and 
honour of the house, whether he had acted in a manner which the 
circumstances of the case did not justify. He had the affidavit of a 
person w r ho assisted in the office of sheriff, to the effect, that when 
the jury was about to be struck, according to the usual course of the 
office, the sheriff ordered the panel to be brought to him, and said 
he would prepare it himself—he who was a relation of two of the 
traversers ; and the deponent swore that he believed this course was 
taken to enable the sheriff to deal with the panel as he pleased, 
though he was sworn to do impartial justice between the parties! 
The right honourable gentleman then adverted to the evidence of a 
person named Farley before the grand jury. He was a person who 
had overheard, at the tavern in Essex-street, a conversation respect¬ 
ing the riot in which Forbes was principally Concerned. That per¬ 
son deposed that he saw a man in the tavern who stated certain 
things—that man was Forbes ; though the deponent did not know 
his name at the time. He was asked by the jury if he knew the 
man’s name; he said, “ No, but that he saw the man in the travel 
ser’s box that morning, and he now knew his name to be Forbes.” 
He was told by the jurors that it was no matter what he knew 
now; he should confine himself to what he knew at the time. 
This person went back two or three times to give his evidence, and 
it was always received as evidence against a person unknown. This 
evidence had been confirmed by that of a man named Troy ; and it 
would be seen by his examination, that the jury were determined 
the question should be considered as exclusively Irish. The jury 
wished to throw some imputation on Farley, who was a Protestant, 
as being a Roman Catholic, and this they attempted to do through 


EX OFFICIO INFORMATIONS. 


289 


the evidence of Troy. They wished to learn from the oath of Troy, 
who was a Catholic, whether Farley was a Catholic also, that he 
might be disregarded on his oath ; when Troy was so interrogated, 
he said he believed not. A juror said, tell us what you know, not 
what you believe. Troy answered, “ I believe you to be a Protes¬ 
tant, and in the same way I believed Farley to be onebut on that 
ground the jury would not believe that Farley was not a Catholic. 
He next alluded to the evidence of a person named Ryan, who was 
asked whether he was counselled or instructed to appear there ? He 
declared he was not; he was asked what motives he had in coming 
forward to give his evidence ? He was also asked, whether he 
could be mistaken as to the person of the man who threw the rattle? 
He said it was impossible. He was asked what description of per¬ 
son he was ? He said he was a sallow-looking young man, whom 
he should know again, though he never saw him before. He was 
asked were there not many men alike. He was asked, did he not 
say that he might be mistaken in the person ? He said no. The 
juror replied, you did, for I have it down in my notes. He believed 
he had succeeded in showing the legality of the power which he had 
exercised; if, however, it was allowed that the power was legal, but 
the exercise of it unconstitutional, he professed he could not under¬ 
stand the distinction. If it was unconstitutional to exercise a pre¬ 
rogative, it ought to be taken away; but it might be said, the power 
was both legal and constitutional, yet it had not been exercised with 
a sound discretion, and for such exercise the party was answerable. 
The cases were very different. If the power was illegal, the fact of 
having exercised it would have been a prima facie case against him, 
and the very statement would have put him on his defence. But, if 
the power was legal, and to be exercised on a sound discretion, then 
it lay upon his accuser to show that he had acted culpably in its ap¬ 
plication. And what evidence was there of this ? There was no 
evidence but what came from his own lips. His own explanation 
furnished the evidence; and on that evidence he was sure, that, in 
the opinion of the house, he should stand acquitted. The mode pur¬ 
sued was not a fair way of dealing with a public functionary. He 
should not be condemned for the exercise of a discretionary power, 
unless it was shown that he made use of it as an instrument of op¬ 
pression and injustice. But, where was there any evidence to show 
that he had turned the prerogative of the crown to party quarreis, or 
private resentment ? He would allow that others might have acted 
more wisely in the same situation than himself; but he denied tnat 
any could have acted more honestly. If he had acted on a mistaken 


290 


plunket’s speeches. 


motive, let it be shown ; but no man could prove that he had acted 
unconstitutionally. He disdained the imputation of an improper 
motive. He had spent a long life connected with politics, and every 
man who knew him was aware that he never had been actuated by 
the feelings and sentiments of party. Much of the obloquy which 
he had lately endured, and endured, too, from those who were never 
before united on any one point, was occasioned, he believed, because 
he would not lend himself to party views. He, however, had never 
sought to benefit himself by treading in such crooked and devious 
paths. He was opposed to zealots of every party. He was inimi¬ 
cal to the little sects and the little policy which did so much mischief 
in his native country, and he should feel happy if they were done 
away. The present question was one of great importance. It in¬ 
volved the proposition, whether in future the laws were to be admi¬ 
nistered in Ireland on the principle of impartial justice—whether the 
king was to be permitted to exercise, for the benefit of the people of 
that country, the gracious disposition which he had shown towards 
them; or whether they would tolerate a party which was alike cal¬ 
culated to put down the king and the law ? He had now put the 
house in possession of his case; and he would leave it to their 
honour and justice. As it nearly concerned him personally, his 
situation was one of great delicacy; he should withdraw during the 
discussion, and leave the house to the free and unconstrained exer¬ 
cise of its judgment. The right honourable gentleman then withdrew, 
amidst loud cheering. 

After Plunket had withdrawn, Mr. W. Courtenay with a brief and manly de¬ 
fence of his conduct, moved that the other orders of the day be read. In the 
course of the debate, the English attorney-general declared his opinion curtly, 
that the proceeding had been perfectly legal and proper. Finally, the original 
motion was withdrawn, on the undertaking of Sir Francis Burdett to move an 
inquiry into the conduct of the sheriff of Dublin. 


THE ROMAN CATHOLIC QUESTION. 

April 17, 1823. 

The “ annual farce,” so designated in this debate by Sir. F. Burdett, of present¬ 
ing the Catholic petition happened this year under angry auspices. Plunket at 
this time was in the complete confidence of the Irish Catholics. But the Radicals 
sympathised with the Tories in reprehension of his conduct as attorney-general, 
and the ministry was divided by diametrically opposite views of the Catholic ques¬ 
tion. A few days before the motion came on, Canning (then secretary for foreign 
^^flirs) had used language which created the impression that it was hopeless to 
think of inducing any English government to carry Catholic emancipation. It 


THE ROMAN CATHOLIC QUESTION. 


291 


certainly looked like an absurdity to see a member of the government, in which 
Lord Liverpool was premier, Lord Eldon chancellor, and Peel home secretary, ap¬ 
pearing as the Catholic parliamentary champion; and Plunket had upon this 
ground left himself peculiarly open to attack, by denouncing, in his speech of 1813, 
the dishonesty of any ministerial compromise on a topic so momentous. 

At the very beginning of the debate, Sir Francis Burdett declared that he 
would give no countenance to the present motion. “ They had heard not longer 
than two nights ago from the former eloquent advocate of the Catholic claims* 
(Canning) that there was not the least chance the question would be carried in 
favour of the Catholics; if this was the case, why consent to practise a deception 
upon the house and the country. He had stated that it was impossible a go¬ 
vernment or rather an administration should ever be formed in which this ques¬ 
tion should be carried; and that if it was possible to form such an adminis¬ 
tration, he, to accomplish it, would willingly leave office, but in fact his acceptance 
of office had really been the cause of all this compromise of the public safety.” 
As for Plunket, “ In bringing forward their claims that night he thought the 
right honourable gentleman was not doing a service to the Catholics either of 
England or of Ireland.” Finally, in declaring that He would withdraw from 
the house when the motion was introduced, he justified the course he meant 
to take by reading the passage from Plunket’s speech of 1813, which was direc¬ 
ted in fact against the very same cabinet, into which after ten years he had 
entered by virtue of its last coalition, in which he describes “ one half of the king’s 
ministers encouraging the Catholics to seek without enabling them to obtain ; 
the other half not decided; some holding out an ambiguous hope, others announ¬ 
cing a never-ending despair;” and in which he denounced the consequences of 
such a course as “ disastrous, not merely in the tumult and discord which they are 
calculated to excite, but in their effect upon the character of the government and 
the times.” There was loud and long continued cheering at this apposite quota¬ 
tion. 

The petition was ordered to lie on the table. The Speaker then called upon 
Mr. Plunket, upon which Sir F. Burdett, Mr. Hobhouse, Lord Sefton, Mr. Ben- 
net, Sir R. Wilson, and several other members on the opposition benches left the 
house. After a short interval, 

Mr. Plunket rose. He commenced by observing, that it was his 
intention to have that day presented a petition from the Roman Ca¬ 
tholics of Ireland, which had been agreed to by a considerable num¬ 
ber of gentlemen—considerable, not merely with reference to their 
numbers, but also with reference to the rank and station which they 
held in society. Owing, however, to some mistake in furnishing the 
names of the petitioners, it was impossible for him, that night, to 
lay the document before the house. This circumstance did not, how¬ 
ever, conclude him from introducing the Catholic question, because 
he was authorized by the Catholics of Ireland to appear in that 
house as their advocate. Never in his life did he address the house 
under circumstances of such extreme difficulty as those under which 
he was placed at the present moment. He found he had to sustain 
the cause of the Catholics, not only against those who nad been 
always opposed to them, but also against a considerable portion of 


292 


plunket’s speeches. 


those who had been ever looked upon as their friends. The cause 
had sustained a severe loss by the secession of a large portion oi 
honourable members who were in the habit of giving it their suppoit, 
and who had very ostentatiously withdrawn themselves, for the pur¬ 
pose of marking their sense of the impropriety of the manner in 
which it was brought forward. But, if the cause had sustained a 
loss from the secession of those honourable members who had retired, 

* it had suffered a still heavier loss from the speech of the right hon¬ 
ourable gentleman (Mr. Tierney) who remained within the house, 
with the intention of giving his vote in its favour. The right hon¬ 
ourable gentleman had always been the friend of the Roman Catho¬ 
lic claims ; he had always acted so; and he did not mean to impeach 
his sincerity. But he would say, that the greatest enemy which 
that cause ever had never gave it so deep a wound as had that 
night been inflicted upon it by its ancient friend. It was in vain 
that the right honourable gentleman and others endeavoured to throw 
on him the responsibility of the failure of the question. The respon¬ 
sibility of that failure lay upon those who had foretold in such omi¬ 
nous tones its defeat, and who treated the subject as a mockery, a 
farce, a delusion, while they animadverted on the personal demerits 
of the individual who was to bring it forward. Under these circum¬ 
stances, he felt that he should not be considered, in the just and 
honest minds of the Roman Catholics either of England or of Ire¬ 
land, as acting an insincere part when he introduced this question; 
and he was not at all afraid of encountering, and throwing aside, 
those imputations which honourable gentlemen had been pleased to 
level at him. He was really at a loss to furnish himself with any 
plausible reason why the right honourable gentleman should think 
that this question was not now entitled to support from every mem¬ 
ber of that house, because it was in the hands of a divided adminis¬ 
tration. The right honourable gentleman had, in his recollection, 
from the year 1807, supported the Catholic cause, though the admin¬ 
istration was divided. The cause, during that period, had made re¬ 
gular and daily advances, though only a portion of the cabinet was 
in favour of it. He did not find, when the question was brought 
forward by any individual on the right honourable gentleman’s side 
of the house, that he had ever damped the cause or thrown out such 
disheartening presages of failure as he had indulged in on the pre¬ 
sent occasion. He would ask the right honourable gentleman how 
lie could reconcile it to his feelings as a patriot—as a man who viewed 
this question, not as it referred to party, but as it respected the 
people—to embarrass the proceedings of those who were ffiendlv to 


THE ROMAN CATHOLIC QUESTION. 


293 


it, merely because the individual who brought forward the motion 
sat on the ministerial, instead of the opposition side of the house ? 
He had always considered the Catholic cause as being too high for 
party. He ever considered it as separate from all petty interests; 
and he was proud to say that his coming over from one side of the 
house to the other, had not injured him in the opinion of the Catho¬ 
lics of Ireland as the advocate of their cause; and he could state 
that it had not in the least effaced the impressions of unalterable zeal 
with which he had ever come forward to support their claims. The 
right honourable gentleman appeared to think that there was some¬ 
thing extraordinary in the circumstance of his having moved from 
one side of the house to the other. He was not aware that there 
was anything in this alteration which ought to surprise the right 
honourable gentleman; for, if his recollection did not fail him, the 
right honourable gentleman himself had performed the figure of 
moving from one side of the house to the other and back again, as 
gracefully and adroitly as it could be executed by any honourable 
member. He did not, however, know but his votes might afterwards 
have been very correct. Doubtless, he could give a very satisfactory 
reason for them. But, if he were asked, why he was not now Sit¬ 
ting on the same side of the house with the right honourable gentle¬ 
man, he thought he could make out a case that would be equally 
satisfactory. Words which he had used ten years ago, had been 
quoted in the course of the debate, and had been introduced with 
much sarcastic observation. He had on that occasion expressed 
strongly the feelings which he strongly felt, and he did not think his 
present conduct was inconsistent with those expressions. He did 
then certainly point out in strong terms the dangerous consequences 
of a divided cabinet on this question; for he believed a large portion 
of the cabinet of that time were utterly and entirely insincere. He 
thought so from the manner in which that administration had come 
into office, and other circumstances; and he did not hesitate to ex¬ 
press what he felt. He might, however, remind the right honourable 
gentleman, that he had the honour of holding office under an admin¬ 
istration of which the right honourable gentleman Avas a distinguished 
member. That was a divided cabinet. They were content to bring 
forward a very contracted measure on this subject, and even that 
they would have abandoned at the time, if the feelings of his majesty 
could have been propitiated, and the necessity for their going out of 
office avoided. He did not censure them for that conduct; indeed, 
he thought they had acted wisely on that occasion. In making ihe 
change which the right honourable gentleman had alluded to t fie haa 


294 


plunket’s speeches. 


not been influenced by any mean or mercenary motives. He came 
to that side of the house on which he now sat, feeling that he was 
perfectly justified towards the Catholics in doing so; knowing that 
those members of the cabinet who advocated the Catholic claims were 
decidedly and conscientiously sincere in their opinions; and seeing 
that the Catholic cause was making rapid strides under that portion 
of the administration, so divided, who were favourable to it. The 
right honourable gentleman did him too much honour, if he supposed 
that his (Mr. P.’s) conduct was of such extreme importance to the 
views and objects of the Catholics of Ireland; but he would say that, 
humble as he was, if he thought his coming over to the ministerial 
side of the house was likely to injure the Catholic cause in the slight¬ 
est degree, the right honourable gentleman would never have seen 
him where he then was. He had made sacrifices in that cause. He 
had not rested on theatrical words or rhetorical flourishes; but he 
had willingly consented to sacrifices, which gentlemen ought to have 
remembered. Yes! he had made sacrifices which rendered him in¬ 
vulnerable to the attacks that had been that night directed against 
him. 

He feared he had too long trespassed on the house, in referring to 
a matter which was personal to himself. He would here drop it, 
and proceed with ,the important motion itself. He owed it to the 
house, perhaps, to offer some explanation, why he had not brought 
forward this question during the last session, and also why he re¬ 
frained from postponing it now. With respect to the motives of his 
own conduct, he was always ready to sacrifice his own views and 
his personal feelings to the paramount interest of the great question 
itself; and he could not help feeling that on the present occasion, 
the cause which he had so much at heart was perhaps placed at 
some risk by the secession as well as by the forebodings of some of 
the honourable gentlemen opposite. Notwithstanding this untoward 
circumstance, he owed it to the country to redeem the pledge he had 
given, and he felt he should do essential injury to the cause itself 
were he, because some ten or twelve gentlemen chose to pronounce 
ti funeral elegy upon it, and then withdraw, to abandon that ground, 
the maintenance of which honour and duty had imposed upon him. 
His reasons for postponing the question last year were simply these. 
The friends of the question, whose views he was bound to consult, 
were, from the then state of Ireland, divided in opinion as to the 
propriety of agitating the subject at that moment, and the Catholic* 
of Ireland were disposed to leave the decision in the hands of their 
friends. Thus placed, he yielded to the wishes of some, and post- 


THE ROMAN CATHOLIC QUESTION. 


205 


ponea the renewal of the discussion. And here he must beg leave 
to deprecate the idea, that he was bound to make this an annual 
question. He had never looked upon it in that light, nor had his 
great predecessor, Mr. Grattan. He had never considered it as strictly 
an annual topic of discussion; but rather thought that great advan¬ 
tages were derived from giving the people of England time for pe¬ 
riodical reflection upon the subject, an opportunity of which, to their 
honour, they had amply availed themselves. His own opinions had 
been early formed upon it—long before he had a prospect of taking 
a part in public life; and the opinions which he had at first instinc¬ 
tively formed had been confirmed by his education and professional 
studies, and fixed and strengthened by a thirty-five years’ residence 
in Ireland. Indeed, he thought the question rested upon principles 
so demonstratively clear, so congenial with the principles of the con¬ 
stitution, and so cogent upon grounds of public necessity, that he 
was astonished to find it still in any quarter pertinaciously opposed. 
He by no means meant to say that the refusal of emancipation would 
be followed by any thing like insurrection or rebellion in Ireland. 
The Roman Catholics were too sensible of the value of the privileges 
they had already received, to put them in risk by any such intem¬ 
perate and ill-advised proceeding. They were grateful for what had 
been bestowed upon them; they were aware of the progress of public 
opinion in their favour; they were satisfied that, sooner or later, the 
question must be carried. No man could say that the question 
could remain where it was. To retrograde was impossible; the 
march must be progressive. Let no man say that the subject only 
affected one class of the community. It was impossible such an ex¬ 
clusion could fail to be felt as a degradation, by the humblest as 
well as the highest individual of the class affected by it. The his¬ 
tory of Ireland showed that the consequence of perpetuating these 
disabilities must always be felt in the perpetual watching and fever¬ 
ish vigilance attendant upon a state of discontent, which kept that 
country out of its natural place in society, affected the resources of 
the British empire both in peace and in war, and diminished her con¬ 
sequence in the scale of Europe. 

The right honourable and learned gentleman then took a rapid re¬ 
view of the parliamentary history of the Catholic question, and ad¬ 
verted to the sanction by the House of Commons of the principle ct 
concession in the year 1821, and in the bill of last year. The num¬ 
bers and property of the Catholics had, he said, been exaggerated in 
their reference to the result of the measure ; and he was convinced 
that, were the bill passed, the youngest man now alive would not in 




206 


plunket’s speeches* 


his time see twenty Catholics returned to parliament. However, al¬ 
though the danger from their admission to the House of Commons 
was, in his opinion, visionary, yet he was ready to declare that were 
the bill in a committee he would not abandon it, if any gentleman 
thought proper to limit the number of Catholics to be admissible into 
parliament. Twice, then, by specific bills, had the House of Com¬ 
mons sanctioned the principle of concession; but those bills had been 
stopped elsewhere. It was irregular for him to allude to the cause 
of that obstruction; but the alleged reasons had gone abroad, and he 
might be permitted to notice them. It was said, that these bills in¬ 
troduced a new principle, hostile to the Protestant establishment of 
the country, and subversive of the settlement laid down at the Re¬ 
volution, and to which the house of Brunswick owed their security 
upon the throne. But, was it true that the House of Commons had 
twice sanctioned a principle of so alarming and unconstitutional a 
nature : or were they to be told that the throne rested on a separate 
parliamentary basis, of which the House of Commons formed no part? 
He positively denied that the throne was exposed to such a risk; 
and contended with great earnestness that the principle which he ad¬ 
vocated was not only congenial with, but inseparably involved in the 
great principles which were declared and established at the Revolu¬ 
tion. 

Before he proceeded to speak of the bill, for leave to bring in 
which he should wish to move, he was desirous of making two or 
three further preliminary observations. And first with respect to 
securities. Securities had hitherto been the subject of much diffe¬ 
rence and discussion. By some they had been considered useless ; 
by others those which had been offered had been deemed insufficient. 
For himself, he had always been decidedly of opinion that some se¬ 
curities were absolutely and indispensably necessary; so much so, 
indeed, that he should object to passing any bill without them. 
Another objection to former bills was, that they did not contain any 
provision in favour of Protestant Dissenters ; but that they relieved 
the Roman Catholics from disabilities to which they left the Protes¬ 
tant Dissenters. He was glad of an opportunity to disabuse the 
public mind on that poiut. Nothing could be less true. The ten¬ 
dency of the bills was, to put the Roman Catholics on the footing of 
the Protestant Dissenters, and nothing more. It was singular how 
uninformed the public were in many respects. It was generally 
imagined that the Protestant Dissenters had no right to sit in the 
Du use of Clemmons. On the contrary, he had as much right to sit 
in *uat house and in the House of Lords, as the member of the Pro- 





THE ROMAN CATHOLIC QUESTION. 


297 


testant establishment. It was also contended that if the measure 
which he proposed were carried, the test and corporation acts must 
also be repealed. That he denied. There was no necessary con¬ 
nexion between Catholic emancipation and the repeal of the test and 
corporation acts. Besides, the test act had been repealed in Ireland 
for forty years ; and that repeal had not only failed in increasing, 
but had actually very much cut down the dissenting interest in that 
country. If at some future period, the repeal of the test and cor¬ 
poration acts were proposed, he would most cordially support the 
proposition; but he^ must decline mixing it up with the Catholic 
question. 

He would now call the attention of the house to the argument 
founded on the principles connected with the Reformation. He ad¬ 
mitted that from the Reformation must be justly dated the rights and 
liberties of the people. But he claimed it as an admitted position, 
that the exclusion of the Roman Catholics or the Dissenters from 
office, or from constituting any part of the government, rested on 
statutable prohibition, and was in direct contradiction to any presump¬ 
tion founded on constitutional principles. They must look at the 
statute law alone, then, as the ground of the exclusion. The act of 
uniformity of Elizabeth must be regarded as an isolated statute, to 
be construed by the light of history. At the period of the Reforma¬ 
tion three principles were operative: the first was the unalienable estab¬ 
lishment of the Protestant religion in these realms as far as human 
regulation could affix permanence; the second was to put down and 
prevent the exercise of all religious professions, as contumacious, which 
were at variance with the religion so established: the third was, to 
give the state a power of distinguishing the well-affected from the 
disaffected, and to disable and disqualify the latter from being admit¬ 
ted into its high offices. Of those principles the first was the most 
important, and was inalienable ; the second, after having been con¬ 
tended against for three hundred years, was at length abandoned by the 
repeal of the law against recusancy; the third was intended as a test 
to separate the well-affected from the disaffected, and for that pur¬ 
pose the oath of supremacy was framed. What the friends of eman¬ 
cipation sought was, a qualified oath of supremacy, such as might be 
taken by a conscientious Roman Catholic, who must always acknow¬ 
ledge a certain degree of spiritual authority in the head of his church. 
Tne right honourable and learned gentleman then referred to three 
documents, at the period of the Reformation, to show the sense in 
which the spiritual jurisdiction of the crown was understood at that 
time. The first was the act of supremacy, by which the crown was 





293 


plunket’s speeches. 


invested with the jurisdiction over its subjects which was claimed by 
a foreign power. Now, he contended, that interference in the spiri¬ 
tual concerns of a sect was not claimed or given by that act; and, 
even if the Roman Catholics gave it at the present day, it could not 
be exercised by the crown. The only authority which that act gave 
to the sovereign, was the power over the Established Church, which 
was claimed by the Pope, and which was denied to him. The next 
document was the declaration of the queen, by which, in explanation 
of the act, she claimed only such a jurisdiction as would exclude the 
admission of any foreign authority over her subjects. The third do¬ 
cument was the act dispensing with the taking of the oath in certain 
instances by Roman Catholics : the queen being, as was stated, other¬ 
wise assured of their loyalty. This, then, was all the act required; 
it was not looked upon as a test of religion, but as a guarantee of 
loyalty. The oath of supremacy required the person who took it to 
declare, that no foreign prince, prelate, state, or potentate, hath or 
ought to have any jurisdiction, ecclesiastical or spiritual, or any au¬ 
thority whatsoever within these realms. Now, the oath in the bill 
of 1821 (and which he proposed to continue) was to the same effect, 
but it added—“ hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, &c., contrary 
to the allegiance due to the sovereign of this country.” The Roman 
Catholic was now ready to take this oath: and he would ask what 
farther would be required of him as a test of his loyalty ? 

The right honourable gentleman then went on to cite several author¬ 
ities, for the purpose of showing that this was the sense in which that 
test was understood at its first enactment; that it applied, not to 
religion, but to loyalty; and that several noblemen and gentlemen 
took the oath in Elizabeth’s time, not conceiving it to compromise 
their religion. This was further proved by the act of the 27th of 
Elizabeth, in which severe penalties were enacted against Jesuits and 
priests exercising their clerical functions; but these penalties were 
dispensed with in the cases of such as took the oath. Now, it was 
Clear that these priests were Roman Catholics, and the legislature of 
that time could not have been so absurd, could not have added insult 
to injury, by requiring them to purchase their exemption from penalties, 
by taking an oath which no Catholic could take, if it had the meaning 
which was now sought to be put upon it. It was not until there was 
added to the oath a declaration, that the Catholic worship was super¬ 
stitious and idolatrous, that it was understood to be against the reli¬ 
gion, and that Catholics, generally, refused to take it. The Pope, at 
the time of passing the act of supremacy, claimed au authority over 
the whole English church—the power of appointing to bishoprics— 



THE ROMAN CATHOLIC QUESTION. 


299 


of receiving the profits of the sees while vacant—of deposing the king 
—of excommunicating him and the people. The act denied to him any 
such authority: and the Roman Catholics were all ready to swear, 
that he neither had nor ought to have such authority, and they were 
willing to take any stronger oath to the same effect if it could be de¬ 
vised. 

The right honourable gentleman then went on to answer many of 
the usual objections urged against the measure ; amongst others, that 
the dispensing with the oath to Catholics, while it continued it to 
Protestants, would be inconsistent. But, the Protestants would not 
be in a worse situation than they were at present. They all took it; 
but none took It in the sense that the Pope had no authority in these 
countries, for it was clear he had some spiritual power; but it was 
ready to be sworn by all Roman Catholics, that he neither had nor 
ought to have any which was inconsistent with the power and sover¬ 
eign authority and supreme jurisdiction of the king of England, or 
in any manner opposed to it. All the researches which had been made 
in connexion with this subject, had produced but one solitary case in 
which the head of the Roman Catholic church could act in opposition 
to the law of the state. Persons of that degree of consanguinity, 
which admitted of their marrying without offending the laws of the 
Protestant church, could not marry by the laws of the Roman Ca¬ 
tholic church. From this circumstance, in a particular case where 
the restoration of conjugal rights might be decreed by our laws, the 
laws of the Roman Catholic church might oppose it. But those laws 
could not deny the validity of the marriage, nor the legitimacy of the 
children of such marriage, nor could they do anything that might 
affect the rights, liberty, or property of the subject. They could 
merely exclude the parties from participation in the rights of their 
church. The power of the Pope was no longer what it used to be. 
His devouring lion, as it had been called when the oath of supremacy 
was framed, had become tame and harmless in our time—had in fact 
been rendered innocent as a suckling lamb. Whatever danger might 
be supposed to attach to the influence which the Pope, as head of the 
Catholic church, might exercise in his realm, the danger existed now 
in as great a degree as it could rationally be expected to exist after 
the. claims of the Catholics should have been granted. If the Catholic 
were disposed to trifle with his conscience, what could prevent him 
from misconstruing the oath which he was now called upon to take. 
If he were honest, the new oath to be proposed to him would bind 
him, if dishonest, the oath at present proffered would not. 

The right honourable gentleman again referred to the reign of 


300 


plunket’s speeches. 


Elizabeth, and quoted the letter of Lord Burleigh to her majesty, in 
1583, in which he stated, that considering the urgency of the oath of 
supremacy must in some degree beget despair, for many Catholics 
must in taking it either do that which they thought unlawful or be 
deemed traitors, he submitted to her majesty’s consideration, whether 
it would not be better for her security, and for the satisfaction of the 
Catholics themselves, to let the declaration be, that whoever refused 
to swear that he was ready to bear arms in her majesty’s defence 
against all foreign powers or states opposed to her, should be deemed 
traitors; this would be a better proof of their loyalty. But (Lord 
Burleigh added) if it should be said, that in an oath of this kind they 
might dissimulate, or expect that the Pope would absolve them from 
its observance, he would reply, so they might in the oath of supre¬ 
macy ; and they who would keep one, might be trusted with the ob¬ 
servance of the other. These were the sentiments of that great and 
wise statesman, above two hundred years ago; but it seemed we grew 
wiser as the world grew older, and refused to have any reliance upon 
the faith of oaths. We, who admitted that the whole security of the 
state—the safety of society—depended upon the sanctity of oaths, 
now refused to place any reliance upon them. To be consistent, if 
we distrusted the oaths of the Catholics, we should undo what had 
been already done in their behalf—we should go back to the full se¬ 
verity of the penal laws, and proceed against them even to extermi¬ 
nation ; we should wield the iron rod of conquest, and when we had 
got the strong man down, we should not content ourselves with cut¬ 
ting off his hair, which would grow again, but should cut off his head 
which could not be replaced. 

He now proceeded, with reluctance, to notice the arguments drawn 
from the revolution against Catholic emancipation. There was no 
greater mistake than that which was fallen into by those persons who 
supposed that the revolution and settlement had anything to do 
with the system established by the 25th and 30th of Charles 2nd. 
So far from this being the case, the revolution was at right angles 
with that system. The fact was, Charles 2nd had ceased to be the 
protector of the state ; the crown had formed the project of over¬ 
turning the established religion. The acts of the 25th and 30th of 
thatereign were not intended to make the throne fundamentally Pro¬ 
testant, but were framed as a substitute for such protection. It was 
obvious that such a system could not be lasting. The parliament, 
in effect, said to the king, “ we cannot trust you ; we will keep you 
on the throne, yield you dutiful obedience; but we will not suffer yoia 
to change the religion of the state.” The first measure of the Revo* 


THE ROMAN' CATHOLIC QUESTION. 


301 


Intion was in direct opposition to the system of Charles 2nd. It 
altered the law by making the throne fundamentally and essentially 
Protestant. King William’s parliament altered the oath of supre¬ 
macy, and proposed to repeal the test and corporation acts. Now, 
his (Mv. P.’s) measure proposed no such innovations on the act of 
William, as William had made on those of Charles 2nd or as Charles 
2nd had made upon those of the reformation. These alterations 
were made according to the altered circumstances of the times; and 
it was upon the alteration in the circumstances of the country at the 
present period, that he founded the expediency of the proposed mea¬ 
sure. It wa3 said, that the settlement at the revolution ought not 
to be shaken—that the principles then established were principles of 
toleration, of civil and religious liberty, and of equal protection to all. 
The revolution was not marked by any such principles of pure and 
religious toleration. It quite shut out the Roman Catholics of Eng¬ 
land and Ireland: it enacted severe penalties against priests being 
engaged as schoolmasters ; so that the Roman Catholics were not 
made objects of toleration, but victims of persecution. The age of 
pure and religious toleration did not in fact begin until the 18th of 
the late king; and then were the true foundations of civil and reli¬ 
gious liberty first laid. Those who opposed these claims on what they 
called the principles of the revolution, by a perverse sort of chemistry, 
extracted from it, for the sake of their argument, all that was bad 
and intolerant, and left behiud all that was great, glorious, and free 
in it, as a useless residuum. It had been often argued, that Mr. 
Locke was good authority against the admission of Catholics to the 
full enjoyment of the constitution; it was urged that Mr. Locke had 
laid it down as a principle, that so long as the Roman Catholics de¬ 
livered themselves up to the supremacy of a foreign prince, whose 
commands they held themselves bound to obey, even to the pre¬ 
judice of the state, they were not entitled to the privileges of tole¬ 
ration. Mr. Locke was right in stating, that any portion of the com¬ 
munity who were leagued with a foreign power against the interests 
of their own country were not entitled to a participation in its con¬ 
stitution. But, who would venture to say, that the Roman Catholics 
of the present day were not entitled upon such ground ? And if so, 
what became of the argument of Mr. Locke ? Mr. Locke went on 
to say, that while the Roman Catholics acknowledged a foreign power, 
superior to the laws of the country, they were not deserving of tole- 
r ai m, and could not complain of not being considered good subjects. 
N<»w, lie would ask, who would venture to say, that the Roman Catho¬ 
lics of these realms were not good subjects v Were they to consider 

u 


802 


PLUNKET'S SPEECHES. 


the concessions which already appeared on the statute book as mere 
flattery, and not at all deserved by the parties to whom those con¬ 
cessions were made ? But, if the Roman Catholics were considered to 
be good subjects, then he would ask, what became of the authority of 
Mr. Locke ? It was natural for the great men, who watched as it 
were the cradle of the constitution, to feel considerable alarm at the 
conduct of the Roman Catholics, and to consider them as bad subjects, 
in consequence of their readiness to join a foreign power. This was 
the doctrine of Lord Somers among others. But if the Roman Catho¬ 
lics of the present day were loyal and firm supporters of the consti¬ 
tution, why should they go back to former periods for a justification 
of a line of conduct which, though perfectly right and reasonable 
then, was perfectly wrong and unreasonable at present ? It was 
true that the great men of that period, such as Lord Clarendon, Lord 
Somers, Mr. Locke, and others, were decidedly hostile to the Catho¬ 
lics ; but then gentlemen who referred to the writings of those men 
should take into consideration the circumstances of the times in which 
they wrote. He would next call the attention of the house to the 
doctrines held by Blackstone with respect to the Catholics. That 
great writer, speaking upon the subject, said, “ the sin of schism, as 
such, is by no means the object of temporal coercion and punishment. 
If through weakness of intellect, through misdirected piety, through 
perverseness and acerbity of temper, or (which is often the case) 
through a prospect of secular advantage, in herding with a party, 
men quarrel with the ecclesiastical establishment, the civil magistrate 
has nothing to do with it; unless their tenets and practice are such 
as threaten ruin or disturbance to the state. He is bound indeed to 
protect the Established church ; and if this can be better effected by 
admitting none but its genuine members to offices of trust and emolu¬ 
ment, he is certainly at liberty so to do ; .the disposal of offices being 
matter of favour and discretion. But, this point being once secured, 
ill persecution {pr diversity of opinions, however ridiculous or absurd 
they may be, is contrary to every principle of sound policy and civil 
freedom.” This was exactly the doctrine upon which he now called 
upon the house to act. The same author went on as follows :— u As 
to Papists, what has been said of the Protestant Dissenters, would 
hold equally strong for a general toleration of them ; provided their 
separation was founded only upon difference of opinion in religion, 
and their principles did not also extend to a subversion of the civil 
government. If once they could be brought to renounce the supre¬ 
macy of the Pope, they might quietly enjoy their seven sacraments.; 
their purgatory, and auricular confession; their worship of relics and 




THE ROMAN CATHOLIC QUESTION. 


303 


images: nay, even their transnbstantiation. But while they acknow¬ 
ledge a foreign power superior to the sovereignty, of the kingdom, 
they cannot complain if the laws of that kingdom will not treat them 
upon the footing of good subjects. ,, So that if it appeared that the 
Roman Catholics were at present good subjects, as he contended they 
were, then there was at once an end to all the arguments both of Mr. 
Locke and Blackstone. Was it not a formidable argument to set up, 
that out of a population of seven millions in Ireland, five millions 
were bad subjects, disaffected to the government, and undeserving of 
a participation in the constitution ? If it could be shown that there 
were in Ireland five millions of men disaffected to the government, 
then he would say, that the right honourable the secretary for foreign 
affairs would be furnished with a stronger argument in favour of neu¬ 
trality, than any which even his own powerful and argumentative 
mind had been able to urge. If they were obliged to employ the 
forces of the country in watching over a disaffected population of five 
millions in Ireland, then adieu to the power and glory which had 
hitherto distinguished this country. They might live on in a state ot 
feverish discontent and uncertainty; but it was impossible that great 
or permanent good could be effected in such a state of things. The 
right honourable and learned member went on to quote Lord Hard- 
wicke, for the purpose of showing that the real security to the Estab¬ 
lished church of this country was to be found, not in the oath of 
supremacy, not in the declaration, but in that wise and salutary law 
which made the crown of these realms essentially Protestant. 

Before he sat down he owed it to Scotland to say a few words upon 
the law upon this subject as it now stood in that country. The 
measure which he proposed only went to remove the oath of supre¬ 
macy, and the declaration. But, there was a Scottish law which 
went to disable Catholics from being electors or elected, in choosing 
or being elected to serve in certain public offices. This law he be¬ 
lieved was still unrepealed; and he should feel happy if any honour¬ 
able representative of that country would propose a clause in the bill, 
for the repeal of this law of disqualification. By the eleventh article 
of the Scottish union, it was provided, that the British parliament 
was competent to abolish any Scottish law, for the purpose of assimi¬ 
lating the constitution of both countries, and every alteration of pri¬ 
vate law was admitted which tended to the advantage of that country. 
Having gone through the various topics, he could not sit down with¬ 
out saying a word or two upon the declaration. It was satisfactory 
to know, that neither clergyman nor layman had opened his lips in 
favour of it. He hoped that this blot would not much longer be al- 


304 


plunket’s speeches. 


lowed to remain upon the statute book; for he did not believe that 
a single human being existed, who would assert that it was war¬ 
ranted by any principle of religion. The enemies of the Catholic claims 
feared those who worshipped the same God, and acknowledged the 
same Redeemer—for his part he dreaded only those who worshipped 
no God, and acknowledged no Redeemer. They feared that the Ro¬ 
man Catholics were disloyal—he only dreaded lest severity and in¬ 
justice should make them so. The right honourable gentleman con¬ 
cluded with moving, “ that this house do resolve itself into a com¬ 
mittee of the whole house, to consider the state of the laws by which 
oaths or declarations are required to be taken or made, as qualifica« 
lions for the enjoyment of offices, or for the exercise of civil functions; 
so far as the same may affect his majesty’s Roman Catholic subjects ; 
and whether it would be expedient, in any and what manner, to alter 
or modify the same, and subject to what provisions or regulations.” 

The reports proceed to say, that “ after the motion had been read from the 
chair, a loud and general cry of ‘ question, question,’ was raised.” Several speak¬ 
ers attempted to prolong the debate amid an impenetrable uproar—each side of 
the house appearing equally anxious to hustle the question aside. As Mr. 
Lambton closed a short emphatic speech with a declaration that he looked upon 
the “ manner in which the question was brought forward by the Irish attorney- 
general, as a gross deception upon the Roman Catholics,” the cries changed to 
“ adjourn,” “ divide,” “ clear the gallery,” and strangers were ordered to with¬ 
draw. The house remained with closed doors for an hour and a half, and, after 
dividing on a motion of adjournment to the following day, in which the noes 
had 292 votes to 134 ayes, it was moved that the debate be adjourned for six 
months. Whereon a motion was made and the question put, “ that the house 
do now adjourn,” which was carried. Thus the present motion dropped ineffec¬ 
tual. 

This debate demonstrated to the Catholics of Ireland the necessity of pres¬ 
sure from without in assisting parliament to come to a conclusion. The Catholic 
Association was formed in the following month, and gratefully passed in its first 
proceedings a strong vote of thanks to Flunket. On the day alter the debate, 
he was asked in his place whether he meant to renew the question this session. 
He said he was in the hands of its friends, but that for his own part he was 
averse to a renewal of the notice this session. 


CONDUCT OF THE SHERIFF OF DUBLIN. 

April 22, 1823. 

Fjik following week, Sir F. Burdett’s motion for inquiry into the conduct of the 
Sheriff of Dublin was brought forward. In introducing it, he passed a liberal 
eulogy upon Plunket’s conduct—“ The first law officer of the crown endeavour 


THE SHERIFF OF DUBLIN. 


305 


ing to reduce a party to the government of the law that had long domineered 
over the people, and anxious to secure the multitude against the vexation of 
long imposed and organised oppression.” Plunket followed him. 

Mr. Plunket said, he meant to trouble the house with a few ob¬ 
servations on what had fallen from the honourable baronet. He 
begged leave, in the first instance, to assure him, that he did not 
mean to offer any opposition to the motion. He was, indeed the last 
person in the house from whom such an opposition could be expected. 
He thought, however, that his case did not stand on the ground on 
which the honourable baronet had thought fit to place it. He had, 
it was true, in the discharge of his duty, exercised a power which 
appeared to give offence to some persons; and the question ultimately 
resolved itself into this—whether he had exercised a sound discretion 
in the application of that power ? The opinion of the house was 
tailed for on this point—whether he had used his discretion unduly, 
Oppressively, or improperly? It was not, whether under the same 
circumstances, he should again exercise the same power—or whether, 
in the peculiar situation of Ireland, it was necessary to resort to his 
legal prerogative ? These were not the disputed points. The ques¬ 
tion was—whether he had exercised the power intrusted to him with 
a fair and honest intention ? It was not because others would, per¬ 
haps, under similar circumstances, have acted differently, that he was 
to be censured. Different individuals would take different views of 
the expediency or inexpediency of exercising a discretionary power ; 
but still their intentions might be equally pure and upright. The 
situation of a public functionary would be most lamentable, if, because 
he differed from others in the use of a discretionary power, he was, 
therefore, to become the object of censure, no matter how just and 
proper his motives were. In order to make a public functionary the 
fair object of censure, the house must arrive at this conclusion—that 
he had acted on some sinister principle. If what he had done, and 
which he considered neither unconstitutional nor illegal, come to be 
inquired into, no censure could be directed against him, unless the 
house was of opinion that he had acted from a love of oppression, 
from a malicious intention, or from some other base and unworthy 
motive. If they could not arrive at this opinion, he was discharged 
from all matter of accusation. He thanked the honourable baronet 
for the fair and candid mode in which he had brought forward this 
proposition; and he would do him the justice to say, that on no oc¬ 
casion did he ever forsake that gentlemanly urbanity of manners 
which he had displayed that night. Under the circumstances of the 
case, he (Mr. P.) had, on a former evening, stated the reasons which 


306 


PLUNKET S SPEECHES. 


induced him to act as he had done. He, however, knew, that the 
statement which he had then made for the purpose of absolving him¬ 
self, must of necessity draw after it this inquiry. But he would ask 
whether this brought the question to the poiut—whether., in exercis¬ 
ing his legal power, he was, or was not censurable ? In his opinion 
it clearly did not. If he brought forward charges against individuals, 
lie might on that account, lay himself open to the censure of the house; 
but that censure could have nothing to do with his conduct in the 
exercise of his legal prerogative. Having stated the general grounds 
on which he conceived his conduct to have been justifiable, he next 
stated the particular grounds on which, as it appeared to him, it be¬ 
came peculiarly necessary that he should adopt the discretion which 
had given rise to so much animadversion. In the course of that 
statement, he certainly had advanced matter which involved a very 
high censure on an individual holding a situation of great importance. 
What he asked of the house to give him credit for on that occasion 
was, not that the charge was exactly as he had stated it—not that 
lie knew it of his own knowledge to be a perfect truth—but that it 
was conveyed to his mind in such a manner as fully impressed him 
with an idea of its truth. Now, he would ask, if he were completely 
satisfied in his own mind that those facts were true, was he not jus¬ 
tified in acting on that impression ? It was a case of very great im¬ 
portance to the country—it was a case in which he felt that justice 
ought to be done as speedily as possible; and therefore he pro¬ 
ceeded by the readiest mode. Was he, under all the circumstances, 
to forego any proceedings against the rioters until he could procure 
affidavits which would enable him to institute a prosecution against 
the sheriff? If he had done so, he thought it would have been a 
gross violation of his duty. The only question, therefore, was— 
whether he had that reasonable conviction in his mind of the truth 
of those facts which would form a fair ground for adopting the pro¬ 
ceedings to which he had resorted ? He certainly felt that convic¬ 
tion ; and therefore he contended that the proposed inquiry was one 
in which he had no more interest than the honourable baronet, or 
any other person in that house ; except that he should be sorry if, 
by any chance, it could be supposed that he brought a charge against 
a public officer lightly or unadvisedly. He meant not to allege any¬ 
thing which could give rise to acrimonious feeling; but this he would 
say, that his suspicions with respect to the conduct of the sheriff 
were not removed, but were considerably strengthened, by what had 
since taken place. He had no hesitation in declaring, that he 
thought the conduct of the sheriff was a very proper object for pro- 


THE SHERIFF OF DUBLIN. 3»V 

secution. He deemed it right now to state, without meaning to 
interfere with any course which the house might think proper to pur¬ 
sue, that if the business were not taken out of his hands by the 
house, it was his intention to institute such a prosecution, for the 
purpose of arriving at the real justice of the case. He agreed with 
the honourable baronet that it would be an essential denial of jus¬ 
tice, if the sheriff were not afforded an opportunity of entering on 
his defence. If the house proceeded with this inquiry, the case 
would, of course, be taken out of his hands. If, however, the house 
declined interfering, he would institute such a prosecution as the 
case called for. Having said thus much, it would, perhaps* be ex¬ 
pected that he should give some explanation to the house as toffiis 
not having proceeded sooner. It might be asked, “ Why did you 
not proceed against the sheriff before, if you considered him liable t c 
prosecution?” He would, in answer to that question, state what 
must appear to every candid mind a full and sufficient reason, He 
had received the information with respect to the conduct of the sheriff 
from different quarters. As that information reached him, he com¬ 
municated it to the lord lieutenant; and it was from time to time 
communicated to his majesty’s government. To show that the ide i 
of a prosecution was no after-thought, he had to observe, that he 
had stated to the government that it would be a matter of grave and 
serious consideration whether a prosecution should not be instituted 
against the sheriff, for his conduct in empanelling the grand jury. 
From the first moment the information was given to him relative to 
the manuer in which the sheriff had conducted himself, the impres¬ 
sion was strong on his mind that the matter must be probed to the 
bottom. The trial of the rioters commenced on the 24th or 2.5th of 
January, and certainly that was not the fit time for instituting a pro¬ 
secution. Mr. Sheriff Thorpe was the person by whom the panel for 
the grand jury was returned. At his (Mr. P.’s) desire, he wished 
the two sheriffs to join in that panel, the thing being perfectly legal: 
he conceived that would have been the better way, as two of the 
traversers were related to Mr. Sheriff Thorpe. The fact, however* 
was, that the panel was signed only by Mr. Sheriff Thorpe; for, 
though he showed it to his brother sheriff, no alteration was made iu 
it. He, however, had hoped that the petty jury for the trial of the 
traversers would have been differently returned ; and that thus a fair 
trial would take place. Therefore it was that he did not think it 
necessary to stop the proceedings for the purpose of prosecuting one 
of the sheriffs. Soon after his arrival in town, the honourable mem¬ 
ber for Armagh gave notice of a charge which he meaut to bring 


308 


plunket’s speeches. 


against him in that house. He asked whether he would have beets 
justified if, when accusations were pending against himself, he had 
instituted a prosecution against the sheriff. When the honourable 
member for Armagh gave notice of his motion, he (Mr. P.) entreated 
that it might be brought forward immediately. He complained ot 
having that charge suspended over his head for two months. Until 
five minutes before he stood up to defend himself, he did not know 
what the specific accusation against him would be. If, under these 
circumstances, he had instituted a proceeding against the sheriff, 
would it not have been said that it was intended as a set-off against 
the accusation levelled at himself? As regarded himself, he thought 
the question had been completely disposed of the other evening ; as 
the proposition that he was not influenced by any undue motive iu 
the exercise of his discretion was acquiesced in. As regarded the 
sheriff, he repeated, that if the house did not take the matter out of 
his hands, he would institute a prosecution. He must do it also by 
the unfavourite mode of an ex-officio information ; for as to apply¬ 
ing to a grand jury of the county of Dublin to find a bill against the 
high sheriff, that would be utterly useless. Ho should file an ex- 
officio information, and he should next apply to the Court of King’s 
Bench, that the case might be tried at the bar of that court, but 
that the venue might be directed to come from another county. The 
sheriff would then have an opportunity, by the testimony of wit¬ 
nesses, and by other legal meaus, to make ids defence. If, on the 
other hand, the house resolved to enter on an immediate inquiry, to 
that course he could not possibly entertain the slightest objection. 
But, as in the event of the institution of a prosecution he should be 
called upon to prosecute, it was not his intention to give his vote 
either for or against the motion. He, however, perfectly agreed 
with the honourable baronet, that it would be rank injustice if the 
sheriff, who wished to vindicate his character, were shut out from a 
fair opportunity of entering on that vindication. 


EX OFFICIO INFORMATIONS. 

May 2, 1823. 

Ar. Spring Rice moved that Mr. D. Macnamara and Mr. T. O’Reilly, attor¬ 
neys in Dublin, be summoned to attend as witnesses at the bar of the house on 
the 9 th of May. 

Mr. Plunicet readily embraced the opportunity which this motion 




EX OFFICIO INFORMATIONS. 


309 


ivfF^rcled him of stating a fact which had some connexion with it. ft 
had been charged that in filing an ex officio information after bills of 
indictment had been ignored by the grand jury, he had acted in his 
office of attorney-general for Ireland without precedent, and had in¬ 
troduced into the administration of the law a practice of which no 
instance had occurred since the Norman conquest. He had upon 
that occasion suggested, that from the authority of the Court of 
King’s Bench, in cases which he cited, a fair analogy was to be 
traced, and sufficient to justify his proceeding. He had remarked 
that it was unfair, because he could not produce the precedents for 
the reasons he then stated, to suppose they did not exist. He had 
since received a letter from a Mr. Foley, an attorney of Ireland, a gentle¬ 
man whom he had not the honour of knowing, in which that gentleman 
stated, that seeing the reports of those debates in parliament in which 
this subject had been mentioned, and the manner in which the ar¬ 
gument had been used, he was induced, from a sense of justice to in¬ 
form him that he believed a case took place in Ireland twelve years ago, 
in which an ex officio information had been filed by an attorney-general 
after bills of indictment for the same offence had been ignored by the 
grand jury. He (Mr. Plunket) replied to this letter by thanking Mr. 
Foiey, and requesting him to inquire into the subject; he had done 
so, and the following were the particulars which he had transmitted:— 
In October, 1811, bills of indictment were preferred against a person 
of the name of Leach, for writing a letter to Sir Edward Littlehales, 
soliciting the appointment of the place of barrack-master. The bill a 
contained three counts ; the first was for sending a letter, proposing 
to give a bribe; the second for offering money by way of bribe; and 
the third for offering securities by way of bribe. These bills were 
ignored by the grand jury ; the court was surprised, and ordered fresh 
indictments to be sent again to the same jury, who again ignored 
them. In November following, the then attorney-general, his prede¬ 
cessor, Mr. Saurin, filed an ex officio information containing the same 
counts, acting under the power which he (Mr. Plunket) had exercised; 
aud the case was tried in the same court. He held the papers in his 
hand, which he did not mean to lay on the table, because he would 
not seem to inculpate the character of the right honourable gentleman 
who had preceded him; but he owed it to his own character to state, 
that twelve years ago the same thing had been done for which he had 
been censured, and in which he was charged with having acted un¬ 
precedentedly. The conduct of the attorney-general at that period 
had never been impeached, nor had any doubt been entertained of its 
legality or justice. He felt that this bore most strongly upon his owa 


310 


PLUNKE^S SPEECHES. 

case, because that honourable gentleman had supposed he was only 
acting in the course of his duty. 

Mr. Denman asked if any judgment had been passed in the case mentioned 
by the right honourable gentleman. 

Mr. Plunket replied, that judgment had been signed for want of 
a plea; and it appeared, in consequence of the contrition expressed 
by the defendant, and of his having lost a valuable appointment, that 
no further punishment had been visited upon him, and the affair was 
dropped. 

Mr. Abercrosiby had heard this statement with the greatest astonishment. 
There were two persons to whom, ex necessitate rei , all the particulars of this 
case must have been known—the then attorney-general and the crown solicitor. 
He would ask the house to consider how the attorney-general for Ireland was 
served in the discharge of his duty, when no communication of this fact had been 
made to him ? If Mr. Saurin did not think fit to inform the right honourable 
gentleman, this was a matter of courtesy of which he (Mr. Abercromby) had no 
right to complain; but that the crown solicitor should not have informed him of 
it, seemed something more than accident. It was for the purpose of impressing 
upon the house the situation in which the right honourable gentleman was 
placed, the inconveniences of which, he believed, were also shared by the lord 
lieutenant himself, that he called their attention to this singular conduct of the 
crown solicitor. 

Mr. Plunket was bound in justice to the crown solicitor to state 
that two gentlemen of the same name had held that office—they 
were father and sou; the father wa3 dead, and the son must have 
been a very young man at the time to which he had alluded. 

This short scene closed Plunket’s vindication in the Bottle Riot case. His 
statement is described as having electrified the house. It was notorious that 
Saurin was the real promoter of the proceedings against him throughout, and 
the fact now discovered, that Saurin had himself, in precisely similar circum¬ 
stances, resorted to the use of the ex officio information, at once marked the utter 
unfairness of the whole proceeding. On the same day the committee, obtained 
by Sir F. Burdett, commenced their inquiry. It sat for nine days, on the last 
of which Plunket was examined. The chairman was directed to report the evi¬ 
dence to the house; and on the 8th of June, Mr. J. Williams, for Sir F. Burdett, 
who was absent through indisposition, gave notice of a motion founded on the 
evidence. On the day fixed for the debate, Sir Francis was still indisposed, and 
the session ended, nothing done, on the 19th of July. 


IRISH INSURRECTION ACT. 

May 12, 1823. 

In a despatch dated January 23, Lord Wellesley, referring to the tithe jacquerie 
which at this time affected Clare, Limerick, Cork, and Tipperary, with selvages 
of several of the adjoining counties, asked for a renewal of the Insurrection Act. 
Lord A. Hamilton a ticked Plunket for inconsistency, in sustaining measures 


IRISH INSURRECTION ACT. 


311 


Much he had formerly stigmatised as an extinction of the constitution—also for 
his conduct on the Catholic question—and for the spirit in which he opposed any 
attempt to abate the payment of tithes. 

Mr. Plunket said, that as he had been much misrepresented, but no 
doubt unintentionally, by the noble lord who had just sat down, he must 
take the liberty of addressing a few words to the house upon this 
question. He could not be fairly charged with inconsistency for the 
support which he was now giving to this bill, inasmuch as he had ad¬ 
vocated it last year, and also in 1806, when he was connected with 
the Duke of Bedford’s administration in Ireland. He allowed that it 
contained a most unconstitutional principle, seeing that it annihilated 
the trial by jury; and he lamented, as much as any man could do, 
the melancholy necessity which compelled the government to inflict 
ic at present upon Ireland. Still, the measure was to be only of a tem¬ 
porary nature, and was much better than the introduction of martial 
law, which appeared so desirable to the honourable member for Cork. 
The introduction of martial law, he, for one, did not like; because it 
was sure to produce irritation, and it could not be attended, either di¬ 
rectly or remotely, by any conciliatory or beneficial consequences. 
The great evil under which Ireland at present laboured, was the re¬ 
luctance felt by individuals to come forward to give their evidences. 
Would the introduction of miirtial law cure that evil? And if it 
would not, would martial law justify those who resorted to it in pun¬ 
ishing individuals without any evidence at all ? If evidence could be 
procured, the present law would be sufficient to meet the grievance; 
but, unfortunately, there existed at present in Ireland a terror supe¬ 
rior to the terror of the law, and which paralysed every effort to carry 
it into execution. The learned gentleman then proceeded to defend 
himself from the charge of inconsistency which had been brought 
against him for his conduct in respect of the Roman Catholic claims. 
He contended, that to that question he had clung with adhesive 
grasp both in its good and in its bad fortune. 

The noble lord had said that, considering his conduct regarding 
that important subject, it was quite impossible to repose any confi¬ 
dence either in his sincerity or in that of any of his colleagues. Urn 
fortunately for the noble lord’s assertion, he had received from the 
Roman Catholics of Ireland, since the late unfortunate decision on 
their claims, the most satisfactory assurances that they approved 
of every thing he had done to forward them. It was true that, in 
1813, he had expressed his opinion of the disadvantage of bringing 
their claims forward with a divided cabinet. He would again repeal 
what he had then said, that, in his opinion, Catholic emancipation 


312 


plunket’s speeches. 


ought to be a. sine qua non with every administration, and that it 
was a measure upon which the safety and tranquillity of Ireland prin¬ 
cipally depended. He thought that there was nothing in his expres¬ 
sions at that time which precluded him from obeying the orders ot 
his sovereign in taking office under the present ministry. In 1813 
he had entertained doubts of the sincerity of the ministers who then 
advocated Catholic emancipation. Those doubts had since been 
removed, in consequence of the great exertions which had been 
made to forward that cause by a noble lord now no more, and also 
by a right honourable friend (Mr. Canning) who was now seated near 
him. In 1813 he had also thought it feasible to obtain a cabinet 
whose members should be unanimous in their opinions upon that sub¬ 
ject. At present he was convinced of the impossibility of ever see¬ 
ing any such prospect realized. When, therefore, he saw that his 
majesty wished conciliatory measures to be adopted towards Ireland, 
and also that the government in that unhappy country was deter¬ 
mined to discountenance the system by which its grievances and dis¬ 
contents had been so long fomented, he felt that he should not be 
weakening the cause of Catholic emancipation, by going over to the 
side of the house on which he new sat; and he therefore had gone 
over to it, retaining all his eld.*and not adopting any new opinions 
for the guidance of his political conduct. He had made these remarks 
in consequence of what had fallen from the noble lord, whose obser¬ 
vations appeared to him to press more upon the individual who then 
addressed them, than they did upon the question immediately before 
the house. He would now say, that were he inclined to vote for the 
inquiry proposed by the noble lord, he would not vote for it as an 
amendment to the present motion. Without saying whether he would 
or would not vote for that inquiry, were it brought forward as a sub¬ 
stantive motion, he would say this—that it deserved a separate dis¬ 
cussion, and that at any rate it ought not to be obtruded on the 
house as a secondary consideration, when it was necessary to obtain 
an unanimous vote from it, in favour of the insurrection act, in order 
to dispel any illusion which might exist in the mind of any misguided 
wretches, respecting the light in which they were regarded by either 
house of parliament. The learned gentleman then proceeded to ar¬ 
gue that he fras not inconsistent in giving his support to the present 
tithe bill, after the opinions which he had formerly expressed regard¬ 
ing the inviolability of church property. The noble lord had com-* 
plained <>f the asperity with which he had condemned the proposi- 
v.o.ia submitted to the housp by the honourable member for Aberdeen. 


BURIALS IN IRELAND. 


3ia 


He begged leave to assert that he had never intended to use any such 
tone as the noble lord had attributed to him. All that he had then 
said was, that the property of the church was not public property, to 
be cut up and carved at pleasure; and what he now maintained was 
this, that though the property of the church was as sacred as any 
private property, it was still liable to those regulations of the legis¬ 
lature to which other private property was liable. In conclusion, he 
again lamented that this act should be necessary, and if any honour¬ 
able member could propose a better, he would willingly adopt it. One 
proof that the powers which it gave had not been improperly em¬ 
ployed had been furnished them that evening by the honourable mem¬ 
ber for Cork, who had complained that they had been administered 
with too much lenity. He thought that, under such circumstances, 
the house might fairly bestow those powers once more upon the Irish 
government; seeing that tho only complaint which had been made 
against it arose out of the discretion and moderation with which it 
had exercised the extraordinary powers committed to its charge. 

Leave was given to renew the bill, by 162 ayes—noes 82, and the power of 
suspending the constitution was shortly afterwards placed in the hands of Lord 
Wellesley and his heterogeneous fidministra^cin. It cannot be complained that 
they abused their powers—nor was Plunket ever a merciless prosecutor. There 
was very little hemp used, considering the times, in his campaign against the 
Threshers. He never countenanced the packing of juries; and the Bottle Riot 
case and Emmet’s are, perhaps, the only cases that can be shown where he ex¬ 
hibited an avenging animus in vindicating the law. In liis report, indeed, upon 
which Lord Wellesley founded the application for renewing the Insurrection Act, 
he ask3 instead for the extension of an English Act which would enable him only 
to transport for seven years. “ With such an instrument to work with,” says he, 
“ I should entertain a confident hope of entirely subduing this offensive and dis¬ 
gusting association.” But the halter was the only weapon that the law then re¬ 
cognised for dealing with Irish grievances. 


BURIALS IN IRELAND*. 

March 22, 1824. 

This measure, it may be seen, had the useful and charitable design of diminish¬ 
ing the asperities of sect in Ireland, by modifying the power possessed by the Pro¬ 
testant clergy over the service of burials. 

Mr. Plunket rose to move the order of the day for the second read¬ 
ing of the Burials in Ireland bill. The right honourable and learned 
gentleman observed, that he would not Lave brought it forward at 


314 


plunket’s speeches. 


that moment, if he had not had some reason to flattter himself, from 
the general opinion which he had collected from all sides of the house 
an the measure, that there was no likelihood of any material objection 
being offered to it, nor of any discussion arising that would be at all 
calculated to produce a protracted debate. The house was already 
aware of the general scope and object of the bill. It related to the 
burials, in Ireland, of persons dissenting from the doctrines and dis¬ 
cipline of the Established Church, with those forms and ceremonies 
which were peculiar to the religion professed by them. Every one 
must feel, that this was a subject of extreme importance, as it related 
to the moral feelings, passions, and prejudices of the great bulk of 
the population of Ireland; and they must also perceive, that it was a 
question of the greatest delicacy, because, as it referred to circum¬ 
stances which must occur in the precincts of Protestant churchyards, 
it would naturally excite the attention of those who felt an interest in 
the security of the Protestant establishment. He therefore approached 
the subject with a considerable degree of caution, he would not say 
ut alarm ; because the measure had been so maturely considered, and 
so nicely prepared, with reference to both sides of the question, that 
while it would make the law easy, as to the burial of Dissenters, it 
would not create any just alaPm in the minds of those who were con¬ 
nected with the Established Church. But, when he stated that it 
was a subject of great difficulty and delicacy, he begged to observe, 
that it was not on that account that he had taken it out of the hands 
in which it had been previously placed. Whether he considered the 
question with a view to its importance, its difficulty, or its delicacy, 
he knew of no hands better suited to bring it forward effectually than 
those of his right honourable friend (Sir J. Newport). The course 
which his right honourable friend had taken in the debate relative to 
education in Ireland, which occurred a few evenings since—the tone 
of temper and moderation with which he had introduced that delicate 
subject, proved clearly that no man was more tit to conciliate the 
opinions and soothe the passions of all parties. Still, however, he 
thought it would be felt, that it was better that this question should 
be taken up by one who spoke the sentiments of the government of 
the country, rather than by any individual unconnected with the 
government. Many reasons could be adduced in support of this posi¬ 
tion. It was right, in the first place, that the public should know the 
anxious solicitude which the government entertained, with respect to 
the welfare of the people of Ireland ; and next, it was important that 
the question should be now brought forward in such a manner as to 
reconcile all class* 3 * to it. This end could be much better attained 




BURIALS IN IRELAND. 


315 


by the government, than if the measure were introduced by any in • 
dividual, however respectable. Having said thus much to excuse 
the government of the country for entertaining this measure, it woultf 
perhaps be expected that he should state some reason for its not hav¬ 
ing been taken up sooner. Many circumstances existed in Irelaud 
which would have made it unwise in government to have interfered 
with a question of this kind at an earlier period. Whatever incon¬ 
veniences existed in the actual state of the law—and he admitted 
those inconveniences to be many and considerable—yet still it was 
found.that very few of them were of a practical nature. Govern¬ 
ment, therefore, had not thought it necessary to legislate on theoreti¬ 
cal principles, so long as the existing law appeared to work well. 
But a new state of things had sprung up, and it was now found ex¬ 
pedient to make some change in the law. The first thing it was 
proposed to do was, to repeal the act of the 9 th William 3rd, cap. 7. 
lie believed, with respect to this point, there was an universal con¬ 
sent on the part of every person concerned. He would now state 
what the object of the act of William was. It was probably known 
to most gentlemen in that house, that there were in Ireland a number 
of abbeys and convents, the sites of places formerly used for religious 
worship, and vested in ecclesiastical persons. These venerable places 
were looked on with considerable respect, if not reverence, by all 
classes of people in Ireland. They had been founded from motives 
of piety, and though sometimes tenanted by superstition and bigotry, 
yet it could not be denied, that they were often the abodes of genuine 
religion and pure charity. From them, in former times, the blessings 
of hospitality had been disseminated amongst the poor and the needy. 
Those plaees had long since been taken out of the possession of the 
ecclesiastical proprietors, and vested in the several members of the 
state. But they were still viewed by the people with feelings of re- 
sDect and veneration. Though no longer used as places of religious 
worship, they were much resorted to as places of burial, not merely 
for the Roman Catholics of the country, but very frequently for the 
Protestants; and he felt, that the remains of those ancient edifices 
were not the least interesting objects of contemplation to those per¬ 
sons who visited Ireland. Looking to the disturbances, religious and 
political, by which that country had been torn, it was a point ok. 
which the mind reposed with some degree of pleasure, when it re¬ 
jected, that in those cemeteries the Protestant and the Catholic, per¬ 
sons of all ranks and persuasions, were buried in common. How¬ 
ever they might have differed in life, in death they were suffered to 
repose together; and the place of their interment was not made a 


plunket’s speeches. 


SI <> 

scene for the display of acrimonious feeling and unseemly asperity; 
This state of things had prevailed, he believed, more or less, ever 
since the Reformation. It must seem extraordinary that, under 
these circumstances, the act of the 9 th of William was passed, by 
which burials in those places were forbidden, as well to Protestants 
as to Catholics. It seemed extraordinary, when the practice was 
carried on without offence to any party, that it should have been ir:- 
erfered with by this law. He believed it was not with a view to 
any direct interference with the rights of sepulture of any religious 
sect that the law was enacted, but that it was framed in a spiiit of 
jealousy, which could not bear that any religious feeling should be 
kept alive with respect to those old places of worship. Certainly, 
whatever might have been the object of the act, its provisions were 
opposed to those affections and decencies, with reference to the de¬ 
ceased, which ought always to be respected. The act was framed, 
but it fell still-born, as all measures must do when opposed to the 
feelings and sentiments of a country. In no one instance, for a series 
of years, had the custom which had so long prevailed been interfered 
with—in no one instance had this obnoxious law been carried into 
effect. If, then, there was an act on their statute-book, to enforce 
which would be considered a crime, and to infringe it w r ould be looked 
on as a duty, it ought not to be suffered to remain ; and one object 
of the measure now before the house was, to repeal this act. The 
house would, however, observe, that there was a clause regulating 
and narrowing that repeal. The reason of this was, that many of 
those places were diverted from their original purpose, and were pos¬ 
sessed by individuals; and care should be taken, that no interfe¬ 
rence with private property was admitted under this measure ; which 
would be the case if persons, who were not in the habit of using par¬ 
ticular places of this description for burying grounds, were suffered 
to do so now. He would now, as shortly as he could, apply himself 
to the more important provisions of this bill, so far as it professed to 
give the right of burial in Protestant churchyards, according to the 
religious ceremonies of the parties whose friends were brought there 
for interment. The noble lord who presided over the government of 
Ireland, and who had applied himself to this, as well as to every 
other subject connected with the interests of that country, felt the 
deepest anxiety for the success of this measure ; aud he (Mr. P.) 
inevv of no other reason why he now addressed the house, except 
that, from his constant intercourse with the noble lord, he had the 
best means of learning his views ou the subject. This measure 
originated with the noble lord, and had received the unanimous 


BURIALS IN IRELAND. 


317 


sanction of his majesty’s government. The two great objects of the 
bill were these, to secure to Dissenters of every denomination the 
right of interment according to their own forms and ceremonies, and 
to take care, at the same time, that nothing was done offensive to 
the dignity, or subversive of the security, of the Protestant religion^ 
Before he proceeded further, it was necessary that he should de¬ 
scribe what was the state of the law on this subject as it now 
existed. In the first place, he would endeavour to put the house in 
possession of what was the situation of the Protestant parson as to 
the right of burial. Gentlemen, doubtless, knew, that the freehold 
of the churchyard was vested in the rector. The churchyard was 
his freehold, and no person could enter it, unless by his leave, with¬ 
out committing a trespass. But, besides the right which belonged 
to him as the possessor of the soil, he was, as the parson, empowered 
by law to superintend the mode of granting Christian burial in the 
churchyard. He was to grant the right of interment; and, by the 
act of Uniformity, he was to read the burial service of the church 
of Ireland, as by law established, and no other. He could not, himself, 
read any other service ; neither could he depute any person to read a 
different service in the churchyard. He could employ another gentle¬ 
man in orders to read the service of the church of Ireland; but he could 
not allow any layman, or a member of any other community, to read 
it. If this law were acted on, and the Protestant clergy were in ever) 
instance to insist on reading this service, and going through the rites 
and ceremonies prescribed by the church of Ireland, it would vir¬ 
tually deprive the great body of the people of the right of interment. 
Considering what their religious opinions were, such a practice would 
amount to actual exclusion. He did not mean to argue, whether 
their feeling on this subject was a right one or not: it was his duty 
merely to state the fact. The opinions, feelings, and prejudices of the 
people of Ireland were such, that if the principle were insisted on, io 
would actually amount to an exclusion from the light of interment of 
all the Catb ilics, at least, if not of all the Dissenters. This was the 
situation of the law on one side ; now let the house mark what it 
was on the other. According to the laws of the land, every person 
had a right to interment in the Protestant churchyard of the parish 
where he died. His relatives had a right to claim it; but they were 
entitled to claim it, subject to that right of the Protestant parson 
which he had just mentioned. But, suppose he performed the rites of 
the Protestant church, or that he waived their performance, there was 
no law which, in either case, prohibited the performance of dissenting 
lies in a Protestant churcnyard. There was no law, where the 

x 


318 


PLUNKET's SPEECHES. 


Protestant parson bad discharged bis functions* or waived them, to 
prevent Roman Catholic ceremonies from being performed in the 
churchyard, however ostentatiously celebrated, or however calculated 
to produce feelings of pain in the mind of the Protestant clergyman. 
There were a number of laws passed in Ireland, after the Reforma¬ 
tion on the subject of the Catholic priests. By those laws, besides 
inflicting penalties on priests coming from abroad, there were others 
which also imposed penalties on all priests who were not registered 
in a regular manner. By the 21st and 22nd of the late king, the 
greater part of these penalties were removed, under certain restrictions 
and conditions. One of them was, that the benefit of those act3 
should not extend to any Catholic priest who officiated in a Protes¬ 
tant churchyard. It was supposed, that under this clause it was a 
criminal or penal act for a priest to perform the burial service in a 
Protestant church-yard: but the supposition was entirely erroneous: 
it had no other effect than saying, that the Catholic priest who per¬ 
formed the service in a Protestant churchyard, should not have the 
benefit of that particular law. He was liable to be indicted, not for 
having performed the service, but for not having duly registered 
himself under the former act; which he was not required to do, pro¬ 
vided he obeyed the restrictions enumerated in the 21st and 22nd of 
George III. Bat, whatever might have been the state of the law on this 
subject, growing out of the 21st and 22nd of George III., all difficulty 
was removed, in Ireland, by the law of 1793. By that law it was not 
an illegal act for the Catholic priest to officiate. He could not be 
indicted for it; he could not be prevented from doing it. If the con¬ 
trary were admitted: if the Protestant clergyman had a right to in¬ 
sist on performing the service of the church of Ireland, it would totally 
exclude the whole body of Roman Catholics from interment. If the 
Protestant clergyman chose to come in and perform his service, or if 
he waived his right to officiate, there wa3 no law to prevent the Ca¬ 
tholic priest from exercising his functions. This was the state of the 
law; and, considering the situation of the parties, it was fraught 
with all the seeds and elements of discord and dissension. But 
though such was the fact—though the state of the law was calcu¬ 
lated to produce conflictions and collisions between those opposing 
■parties—it was pleasing to state, that with very few and rare ex¬ 
ceptions, those elements of discord and dissension had not created 
any of those effects which might have been expected from them. 
One would, indeed, almost praise this state of the law; since it gave 
an opportunity to people of all sects, and of all religious opinions, to 
display feelings the most liberal and charitable, lie must say, and 


BURIALS IN IRELAND. 


319 


he said it with great respect for the parochial clergy, that, until of 
jate years, they had not, in the smallest degree, interfered with the 
right of interment in Protestant churchyards. They had forborne to 
exercise a duty which was imposed on them by the common law of the 
tountry, and by the act of Uniformity, because they felt that it would 
create uneasiness and dissatisfaction. The Catholic clergymen also 
had conducted themselves in a most exemplary manner. He be¬ 
lieved the Catholic body in . general were buried without any cere¬ 
mony • but it was customary, on the interment of Catholics of the 
better orders, to have, more or less, a sort of service performed by 
the priest. Sometimes he appeared in the stole, a sort of black robe, 
and sometimes he officiated in his plain clothes but he never pre¬ 
sumed to offer anything offensive to the Protestant Church. This 
was the way in which the matter remained, until lately, without any 
degree of offence being taken by the Protestant clergy. This would, 
be particularly stated; because it proved that there was not that 
unmanageable texture in the sentiments of those who held different 
religious opinions in Ireland, that ought to shut out all hope of ac¬ 
commodation, that ought to lead the house to believe that it was 
impossible to smooth down those religious feelings, the asperity of 
which had been the bane and curse of Ireland. When matters re¬ 
mained thus—when, on the one hand, there was no interference, and 
on the other, no offence—he thought it would have been unwise if 
government had legislated for prospective evils, that perhaps might 
never have arisen. But, about four or five years back, the perfor¬ 
mance of religious ceremonies by a Catholic priest in a Protestant 
churchyard was resisted. At the time this took place, such occur¬ 
rences were extremely unfrequent; and government thought it better 
to get rid of them by giving them conciliatory advice, rather than 
by exerting the strong hand of authority, or by calling on parliament 
to take the business up. In the course of the last year, however., 
the complaints on the subject had greatly increased. Whether the 
right was more frequently claimed by the Catholic clergy, or con¬ 
tended for in a different degree or manner from what had been cus¬ 
tomary, he could not say; but a good deal of alarm had certainly 
been excited. Whether that alarm was just or not he could not dis¬ 
cover ; and he believed it would be very difficult to ascertain the 
fact. If one person were asked, whether the ceremony were the 
»ame as was heretofore performed, the answer was in the affirmative; 
but the next individual of whom inquiry was made would state ex¬ 
actly the reverse. In fact, individuals seemed to be guided rather 
by their prejudices, than by any desire to elicit the truth. He 


PLUNKET 5 SPEECHES. 


320 

therefore thought it would be much better to leave the circum¬ 
stances out of which this alarm had arisen, in the ambiguity in 
which they were placed at present, than to attempt to explore them. 
Whatever had been done by the Protestant clergy, was, he felt con¬ 
vinced, performed in the discharge of a conscientious duty. He paid 
a most ready and willing homage to the forbearance manifested by 
the great body of the parochial clergy of Ireland; and he was cer¬ 
tain, wherever they had recourse to resistance, they were impelled 
to it by a sense of duty alone. The government, as he had already 
observed, were anxious to soothe all differences, by friendly and 
conciliatory advice ; but it at length became necessary to examine 
what the real state of the law was on this subject. If the law were 
clear and plain—if its operation appeared calculated to produce peace 
and union—then it was right that the people should kuow it; but 
the case was greatly altered when the law carried within itself the 
elements of hostility: when the concord which had so long pre¬ 
vailed arose, not from a knowledge of the state of the law, but from 
au ignorance of it. It would have been productive of the most un¬ 
pleasant consequences, if it had been boldly stated, “You, the 
priest, h; ye a right to bury this mau—you may enter the church¬ 
yard wit i bell, book, aud candle, and perform the service in the 
most offensive manner possible.’* If the priest had the power to 
exclaim to the Protestant clergyman, “ I am doing this by the autho¬ 
rity of the government, who have told me what the law is on the 
subject,” it would be the cause of constant feuds. Tnis pernicious 
knowledge of their rights must end in continual conflicts between 
the parties; and therefore it was necessary, that the law should not 
remain in its present situation. Heretofore, the law had not been 
insisted on—the proceedings of the Catholic clergy had been little 
interfered with. Had it been otherwise, the Catholics of Ireland 
would be driven from the tombs of their ancestors. It was not a 
claim of ambition which they put forward—it was not a political 
privilege which they demanded. What they contended for was the 
offspring of those feelings of devotion and piety, which were inhe¬ 
rent in the nature of man, which were wholly independent of adven¬ 
titious circumstances. There was no crime so barbarous, no ignor¬ 
ance so profound, no philosophy so arrogant, as to deny the justice 
of that feeling which was implanted in the nature of man, and which 
induced him to look with affectionate regret to the spot where the 
remains of his ancestry were deposited. It was not the creature of 
philosophy : it was the voice of that Being, who, when he had 
doomed us to the grave, inspired our hearts with the emSdent hope, 


BURIALS IN IRELAND, 


S21 


that <rar affections and feelings wonld exist beyond that goal. If, 
however, the Roman Catholic priest were openly told, that he might 
perform his ceremonies in the most ostentatious manner, such a pro¬ 
ceeding would give alarm, and not unjustifiably, to the Protestant, 
It was therefore necessary that some alteration should be made in 
the law ; and the question was, which was the best mode of dealing 
'with the subject ? There were three modes in which the existing 
law might be altered. First, it would be possible* to give separate 
burial-grounds to the Roman Catholics and the Protestants ; and 
this idea had, in fact, occurred to some Catholics of influence ; but 
he thought, for his own part, and he was convinced the house would 
go along with him in the feeling, that, of all remedies for the present 
evil, no other so objectionable could be found. The allotment of 
separate burial places would not only, like the giving separate places 
of education, tend to strengthen the line of demarcation already sub¬ 
sisting between the two religions, and to preclude for ever all hope 
of that union in heart and political opinion which every sincere lover 
of Ireland must hope for, whatever he might think as to its imme¬ 
diate probability, but it would go to outrage the very commonest and 
yet most sacred feelings of humanity. It would have the effect, the 
house would see, in many cases, of separating families as to their 
place of burial. A husband could not be buried with his wife, a 
brother near his brother, a father by the side of his son. It would 
hardly be necessary to say more upon the impracticability of intro¬ 
ducing such an arrangement. The next proposition then, he would 
suppose to be this—to make the right of interment to the Dissenter in 
Ireland an absolute right—to have it a stern and unbending mandate 
upon the Protestant parson, to admit him to burial, and then to restrict 
the exercise of this absolute right, so as to prevent its being used in 
a manner offensive to the feelings of the Protestant. This plan cer- 
taiuly did not carry, upon the face of it, so much positive unfitness 
as the former; but still the house would hardly find it to be a u ise 
one, even if it was practicable, which he doubted: for the great dif¬ 
ficulty in the way of such a regulation would be, not the unwilling¬ 
ness of the Protestant parson to give up the absolute right, but his 
disability to do so. By the act of Uniformity, and the canon law of 
the country, he was bound to perform the right himself, and could 
not make over absolute power to another to do it. This, however, 
was as the law now stood ; the new act authorised the parson to 
give the desired permission; but if it was said, that the spirit and 
the terms of the act ought to be—not he may give permission, but 
he shall xdve permission, he (Mr. P.) denied the fitness of that course, 


522 


plunket’s speeches. 


because the house should be aware, that> even for the admission of 
i Protestant to burial, there was nothing upon the parson mandatory, 
i he Protestant himself could not be buried without permission from 
the parson. True, the parson might not withhold his permission, 
unless upon some satisfactory reason; but, even if he did withhold it 
wrongfully, he could not be indicted, or made liable to a civil action 
for so doing; he could only be censured in the Spiritual Court. 
Cases might be put, however, in a moment, in which the parson wa3 
entitled to refuse, lie was not bound to bury a person who died 
excommunicated; or who had never been baptised; or one who had 
committed suicide. In fact, he was generally to judge of the time, 
the convenience, and the fitness of the thing being done ; and if the 
assent was not compulsory in the case of a Protestant, there were 
additional reasons in abundance why it should not be so in the case 
of a Roman Catholic. When a dissenting clergyman applied to a 
Protestant clergyman for permission to bury, the Protestant clergy¬ 
man was bound to judge, first, whether it were one of the applicant’s 
flock. He must ascertain whether the deceased was really a Roman 
Catholic or not; because there had been cases, and not very uncom¬ 
monly, in which that point had been disputed. There were other 
circumstances to be considered. Who was the applicant, for in¬ 
stance ? Was he, as he professed himself, a Protestant clergyman ? 
He might be some mad fanatic Jumper, who had no right to make 
any such application. All these were matters of which the Protes¬ 
tant clergyman had to judge ; and, if an absolute mandate was to be 
given, they would all be special matters to be provided for. Further 
specialities would have to be considered—the mode and manner of 
performing the ceremony, the tapers, and other circumstances of os¬ 
tentation in the Catholic, which went beyond the modesty of the Pro¬ 
testant church. But the present bill made arrangements which 
could hardly fail to satisfy all parties; for, as its avowed intention 
was, to give the Dissenter the benefit of interment according to the 
rites ot his own church, in a Protestant churchyard, the Ootestaut 
clergyman could no longer allege the difference of religion as a reason 
for withholding the permission to bury. He repeated that the pro- 
sent act was one for which the Catholics of Ireland ought to feel 
most grateful; for it was in fact a charter of toleration, a direct de¬ 
claration, that every person in Ireland, of whatever religions belief, 
was entitled to interment according to the rites of his own persuasion. 

I he law, as regarded its effects, was put into the strongest practical 
shape. The Protestant clergyman was to be applied to. If ho 
thought fit to refuse permission- he was bound to state in writing tc 



BURIALS IN IRELAND. 


323 


the applicant, and immediately, the cause of his refusal; and more¬ 
over, forthwith to certify the same cause to his ordinary, or the 
bishop of his diocese, who was to forward it again without delay, 
to the lord lieutenant, or chief government of the country. Thus 
there could be no reason to apprehend refusal on the existing 
ready ground—that of the difference in the religion in the party 
making application; and still less would there be any danger of a % 
light or frivolous objection, because it would be known that that ob¬ 
jection was at once to go before authority. And further, with regard 
to the extent of the act, it was virtually mandatory, though not 
mandatory in terms, for he stated it as a principle of law, and if he 
was wrong he might be contradicted, that where a public functionary 
was legally enabled to do certain acts which were for the good of the 
community, the law which made it lawful for him to do those acts, 
in fact made it his duty to do them. So that, on the one hand, the 
act was mandatory, for the clergyman stood bound, in such a case, 
to do that which it was lawful for him to do; and on the other 
hand it would be observed, that in the prevision for the service to 
be performed, there was no permission for the burial service gene¬ 
rally, but specially for the service of the grave—an important point 
—because, in the Roman Catholic liturgy, the service of the grave 
was not the burial service, the burial service involving the most 
pompous display of the rites of the Catholic religion; and the service 
of the grave being merely a short prayer and psalm, attended with 
no parade of ceremony whatever. Still the law, no doubt, as it 
would stand, might by possibility be abused. He did not deny that 
it might. It was possible, on the one hand, that a Protestant 
clergyman might, in defiance of consequences, capriciously withhold 
his permission; and on the other hand, there might cases arise, in 
which the privilege granted might be taken gross advantage of. 
But it was not, in his view, the spirit of legislation, to make laws to 
meet extreme and barely possible cases. He rather preferred > in all 
arrangements, to leave such cases to be dealt with as they arose; 
aud he had no fear, upon the present question, but that the law 
would work perfectly well. With regard to the Protestant estab¬ 
lishment, he was not surprised that they should feel some alarm as 
to the new law at first. It was certainly, up to a certain point, the 
introduction of a new right and power; it was giving the Catholic 
church a right in the churchyard of the Protestant church: but a 
great deal of this objection vanished when gentlemen considered, 
that the law in fact only took away a right which the Protestant 
clergyman had never exercised. If il was said that the Protestant 


324 


PLUNKET’S SPEECHES. 


parson had only abstained from using his right, because the cere^ 
mony performed had been performed in the private house of the 
Catholic, and not openly, as it would be now, in the Protestant 
churchyard—this might be said, and the case still would be exactly 
where it was before ; for the very avowal conceded a principle just 
as strong as that he now contended for. The ceremony was per¬ 
formed in the private house ? True ; but the Protestant clergyman 
knew that it was performed there. He not only knew it, but he 
must, of necessity, be taken by his own act, to be cognizant of it; 
because he could never be supposed to be permitting bodies to be 
interred without any ceremony of Christian burial. We could not 
bear that the Protestant parson had been permitting human bodies 
to be thrown into the ground like so many dogs; he could only 
stand justified in his forbearing to perform the rites of Christian 
burial according to his own religion, by the knowledge that those 
rites, according to another form, had been performed already; so 
that, in fact, he acknowledged that the performance of certain rites, 
according to the manner of the Catholic faith, gave a body that 
title to come into his Protestant churchyard, which, without those 
rites, it could not have had. The act before the house went, in 
principle, no further than this. There was nothing new in the effect 
of what it did, the novelty was only in the form. No rational Pro¬ 
testant parson would complain of being permitted by law to waive 
that right, which he had been all along accustomed to waive, with the 
law against him in so doing. In the confidence that his measure 
would satisfy all parties, he should sit down by moving that the bill 
be read a second time. 


UNLAWFUL SOCIETIES IN IRELAND BILL. 
February 11, 1825. 

Early in the year 1823, O’Connell proposed to Shiel and a party of friends who 
were dining with Mr. T. O’Mara at Glancullen, the plan of an association for 
the management of the Catholic cause. At the aggregate meeting of the Ca¬ 
tholics, which took place in April, a resolution of the same design was carried ; 
and on Monday, the 12th of May, the first meeting of the Catholic Association 
was held at “ Dempsey’s rooms in Sackville-street.” Thenceforward the Asso¬ 
ciation in frequent sitting met at Coyne’s, the Catholic bookseller’s; and before 
a month had passed, was in active working order. 

From small beginnings it became, in the course of a year, the most formidable 
popular organization that the world ever witnessed. Its influence ramified into 


UNLAWFUL SOCIETIES. 


325 


every parish in Ireland. Its capacious sphere found place and work for every 
member of the Catholic body, the peer, the lawyer, the merchant, the country 
gentleman, the peasant, and the priest—petitions to be accumulated, rent to be 
levied, deputations to the throne and to parliament, vigilant administration 
of justice between Catholic and Protestant, stormy electioneering—and every week 
the passionate eloquent outbursting in speech and address of that fierce sense of 
wrong and longing for freedom, which, for a century, had been smouldering in the 
hearts of the people. Over all, the voice of O’Connell, like some mighty minster 
hell, is heard through Ireland, and the empire, and the world—through all time 
too. 

Its historian says well, “ It guided the people and thus raised itself in raising 
the people. In the short space of two years, what had long defied the anxious 
exertions of all preceding bodies was tranquilly accomplished. The ‘ three hands,’ 
the three classes were found in one, the penal statute was the force which clasped 
them. The entire country formed but one Association.” 

Emancipation had ceased to be the “ open question” of English statesmen. It 
had become the purpose of a people—a people, which from a mere mob, trodden 
to the helot level of the law, had become as carefully arrayed, and as animate 
m ith the sense of organization as an army. English statesmen felt that their 
“open question’’ would soon be wrestod as a right, no longer conceded as a grace; 
and prepared to cover their retreat. It was determined to accompany emancipa¬ 
tion with the suppression of the Catholic Association, and the disfranchisement 
of the Catholic peasantry—the stout-hearted forty-shilling freeholdei-s. 

The bill for the first purpose was introduced by Goulburn, under the above 
heading, and was defended by Plunket in the following speech. 

Mr. Plunket said, he stood in a situation which required the ut¬ 
most indulgence of the house. The subject before the house had 
been so fully discussed in all its parts, that he felt it impossible for 
him to add to the arguments that had already been adduced in its 
favour; and he should not have obtruded himself on the house in the 
course of this debate, if it were not to declare his view of the state 
of that country to which this question immediately related. That 
was his object, rather than the hope of throwing any additional light 
on the subject then before the house. Ho confessed that he never 
had risen in that assembly with emotions of greater pain, nor did he 
ever approach any question with feelings of deeper apprehension than 
he approached this. It was said, that the measure now proposed was con¬ 
trary to the popular principles of the constitution ; and that it was in¬ 
tended, through a breach of those principles, to wound the cause of the 
Roman Catholics. The measure had been denounced, by gentlemen 
whom he highly respected, as one that was likely to be attended 
with circumstances of the most ruinous nature. These, certainly, 
were very heavy imputations on the proposition made by his right 
honourable friend; but he must say, that down to the present mo¬ 
ment, they rested on mere assertion, and were unsupported either 
by argument or proof. Coming, however, from persons of so much 


326 


plunket’s SPEECHES 


sincerity and ability as those to whom he had alluded, he was led 
almost to doubt the evidence of his senses, and to distrust the proofs 
which the converse of the proposition laid down by those gentlemeu 
was capable of receiving. He trusted that, upon consideration, it 
would appear to the house, that the proposed measure did not inter¬ 
fere with any of the popular privileges of this country ; he trusted 
also it would be found that it did not affect the Catholic question; 
and he confidently trusted that none of those disastrous consequences 
would flow from it, which some gentlemen seemed to anticipate. 
The question rested not on ordinary grounds; it rested on the 
ground of imperious and essential necessity. The safety of the state 
made the adoption of this measure absolutely necessary. Before he 
proceeded further—before he touched on incidental points, he would 
call the attention of the house to the real nature of the question which 
was proposed for consideration. It had been argued very generally 
on the opposite side of the house, that this measure attacked, most 
materially, the privileges of the Catholic body; but he begged leave 
to say, that it went to attack all illegal and unconstitutional institu¬ 
tions, whether arrayed on behalf of the Roman Catholics or against 
them. This was not a single measure—it was not a measure hastily 
taken up: it was adopted in consequence of a communication from 
the throne, which communication also recommended, that the entire 
state of Ireland should be taken into consideration in the course of 
the session. The situation of that country was to be considered, not 
with reference to any particular point, but with reference to all points; 
and from those of course it was impossible the Catholic question 
could be excluded. It was necessary to pursue this course, for the 
purpose of curing the evil, of which the Catholic Association was 
only a symptom. He could not, therefore, conceive, let the indivi¬ 
dual be ever so sincere a friend to Catholic emancipation, how he 
could object to the proposed measure, accompanied as it was by the 
declaration contained in the speech from the throne. It was said, 
and truly said, that, at the moment when the peace of the session 
was likely to be disturbed by the bringing forward of this measure, 
Ireland was in a state of peace and tranquillity. And his honourable 
friend who spoke last, wondered why such a measure, under these 
circumstances, had been resorted to. He would admit that Ireland 
was in a state of peace and prosperity. She had participated in the 
general prosperity of the empire. She had been enabled, by the 
noble lord at the head of the government, and by the measures which 
he had matured (measures of the most wise and temperate descrip¬ 
tion), to enjoy the blessings which were the offspring of internal traa- 


UNLAWFUL SOCIETIES. 


327 


quillity. Those measures had been properly administered; and 
public confidence had, in consequence, been restored. The noble 
marquis, when sent to Ireland, had found that country in a state 
nearly bordering on rebellion. He softened down the feelings of ex¬ 
asperation that existed, and the people soon placed confidence in the 
justice and benignity of his administration. It was a great blessing 
—it was a most gratifying object—to behold that country now float * 
ing on the tide of public confidence and public prosperity. She was 
lying on the breakers, almost a wreck, when the noble marquis ar¬ 
rived ; and if he had not taken the measures which had been so 
successfully adopted, she never could have floated on that tide of 
public prosperity. 

He could not agree with the honourable and learned member for 
Winchelsea when he asserted, that the return of peace and tranquil¬ 
lity to Ireland was attributable to the exertions of the Catholic As¬ 
sociation. But, even if that position were true, still it formed a 
reason for adopting the present measure; because, as the honourable 
member for Galway (Mr. Martin) had very properly said, all argu¬ 
ment as to the necessity of this measure was at an end, if once the 
existence of so formidable a power was admitted. If the Catholic 
Association could put down those who were illegally inclined, could 
they not raise them up again, if they thought proper ? “ Toilere sea 
ponere vult freta,” And here he would beg leave to say, that 
amongst the persons who were most active in effecting this restora¬ 
tion of order and tranquillity, and in convincing the people of the 
advantages which were derived from an equal administration of the 
laws, were the Catholic priests of Ireland, not the Catholic Associa¬ 
tion, who arrogated to themselves all the merit, who wished to run 
away with all the praise that was due to the nobility, clergy, and 
gentry of the country. The Roman Catholic clergy had, without any 
dictation from that body, preached to the people the principles of re¬ 
ligion and of peace. He said this injustice to that most useful and 
most calumniated set of men. Having borne this testimony to the 
tranquillity and prosperity of Ireland, the question naturally was—- 
“ Why, when the state of things is so flattering, do you bring this 
measure forward ?” He would answer, that, although he never re¬ 
membered a period when greater prosperity prevailed in Ireland, yet 
he never recollected a time when so great, when so violent a degree 
of excitation existed in that country; and he knew that much alarm 
was felt on account of the danger that might arise, if the present 
system were allowed to go on with a progressive increase of strength. 
That very-considerable alarm existed in the minds of many Protest 


328 


PLUNKET S SPEECHES. 


tants, it was impossible to deny. He did not mean to contend that 
this alarm had not been exaggerated; that it had been very much 
raised by wicked and interested persons, he readily admitted; but 
the desperate conduct of this society had tended to verify the justice 
of the fears and apprehensions that had been conjured up. An hon¬ 
ourable member had, in the course of his speech, admitted that in 
the parts of Ireland in which he had been, he had observed that this 
excitation was powerfully alive. He further said, that amongst the 
Roman Catholic population he had observed more excitation and 
expectation than he ever remembered to have witnessed before ; and 
he asked, whether this was not a reason for immediately granting the 
Catholic question ? He (Mr. Plunket) sincerely wished'to graut the 
claims of the Catholics; but if they could not grant them, were the 
legislature, therefore, not to make provision for any circumstances of 
danger which they might have reason to apprehend ? 

[Hear, hear, from Sir F. Burdett.] 

The honourable member for Westminster appeared to notice this pro¬ 
position. He wished him to do so. If this measure of Catholic 
emancipation were not granted by the house, was the refusal, he 
would ask, to be submitted to, or to be resisted ? Because the answer 
to that question involved the justice or the reprobation of the measure 
now before the house. The fact was, that if the Catholic question 
was felt to be of that paramount importance which called for instant 
adoption (and to that point he went), there was no necessity for this 
institution; but if the measure of Catholic emancipation was not 
adopted, and if the refusal was to be resisted by the physical force of 
Ireland, then, he contended, that this was an association which ought 
to be opposed as well by the friends of the Catholics as by those who 
were adverse to their claims. Before he proceeded further, he would 
very shortly remind the house of the nature of this Roman Catholic 
Association. He did not mean, after the luminous statement of his 
right honourable friend, and the remarks which he had made in the 
course of the debate, to give more than an outline of the association ; 
confining himself strictly to those points which he deemed essentially 
necessary. It appeared that this society was formed on a plan dif¬ 
ferent from those numerous defiances of the law which had existed in 
Ireland A number of gentlemen had, it seemed, formed themselves 
into a club, not merely for the purpose of forwarding the Roman Ca¬ 
tholic question, but “ for the redress of all grievances, local or general, 
affecting the people of Ireland.” He quoted the words of their own 
address; and he must say, that those parties undertook, on the mo¬ 
ment, as many important subjects as ever engaged the attention of 




UNLAWFUL SOCIETIES. 


529 


iny body of legislators. They undertook the great question of par¬ 
liamentary reform—they undertook the repeal of the Union—they 
undertook the regulation of church-property—they undertook the 
administration of justice. They intended not merely to consider the 
administration of justice, in the common acceptance of the term, but 
they determined on the visitation of every court, from that of the 
highest authority down to the court of conscience. They did not 
stop here. They were not content with an interference with the 
courts ; they were resolutely bent on interfering with the adjudication 
of every cause which affected the Catholics, whom they styled “ the 
people of Ireland.” Here was a pretty tolerable range for their ex¬ 
ertions. He did not deny, that if a set of gentlemen thought fit to 
unite for those purposes, it was in their power to do so ; but then 
comes the question as to the means which they employ; and those 
means I deny to be constitutional. They have associated with them 
the Catholic clergy—the Catholic nobility—many of the Catholic 
gentry, and all the surviving delegates of 1791. They have estab¬ 
lished committees in every district, who keep up an extensive corres¬ 
pondence through the country. This association, consisting originally 
of a few members, has now increased to 3000. They hold perma¬ 
nent sittings, where they enter upon the discussion of every question 
connected with the peace and tranquillity of Ireland. This I think 
is a pretty strong case in favour of the opinion, that their existence 
is not compatible with the security of the state. With this, however, 
they were not satisfied. They proceeded to establish a Roman Ca¬ 
tholic rent; and in every single parish of the two thousand five hun¬ 
dred parishes into which Ireland is divided, they established twelve 
Roman Catholic collectors, which, taken together, makes an army at 
once of 30,000 collectors; unarmed I admit; unarmed in every thing 
but prayers, entreaties, and influence. Having raised their army of 
collectors, they brought to their assistance two thousand five hundred 
piiests, the whole ecclesiastical body of that religion ; and thus pro¬ 
vided, they go about levying contributions on the peasantry. Now, 

I say that this is a direct violation of the principles of the British 
constitution. I do not say that it is illegal in the strict sense; for 
if it was, the Irish government wonld be able to prosecute, and need 
not have come here for a remedy; but it is going far enough to say, 
that parliament is the recognised legislature, and that the association 
has gone so far as to assume its functions, to justify the position, 
that they had violated the prioeiples of the constitution. 

In proceeding to state my view of the constitutional question, I 
im aware of the high authorities in whose present's I speik, and of 


S30 


plunket’s speeches. 


what I owe to them and to myself. But, nevertheless, I will 
that an association assuming to represent the people, and in that 
capacity to bring about a reform in church and state, is*directly con¬ 
trary to the spirit of the British constitution. Let me not be mis¬ 
understood. Do I deny the right of the people, under this free con¬ 
stitution, to meet for the purpose of promoting the redress of griev¬ 
ances in church and state, by discussion and petition ? Most cer¬ 
tainly not. Do I mean that they have a right to increase their 
numbers, and to form themselves into clubs and bodies? Certainly 
not. But I do deny that any portion of the subjects of this realm 
have a right to give up their suffrages to others—have a right to 
select persons to speak their sentiments, to debate upon their grie¬ 
vances, and to devise measures for their removal, those persons not 
being recognised by law. This was the privilege alone of the com¬ 
mons of the United Kingdom; and those who trenched upon that 
privilege acted against the spirit of the British constitution. I will 
not assert that there may not be cases where no danger would be 
likely to arise from such an assumption of- authority. But I must 
treat the case now before the house as it really stands; and I con¬ 
tend, that if there be a body of people in Ireland—I care not whether 
they amount to 6000 or more—who stand forward as the represen¬ 
tatives of six millions of their fellow-subjects, such an assembly is il¬ 
legal. That is the point which the house has to consider. So far 
as that assembly is opposed to the authority cf the House of Com¬ 
mons, it is, I maintain, guilty of a daring infraction of their rights. 
It was not (Mr. Piunket said) the amount of “ the rent” that he com¬ 
plained of: it was the principle that he complained of. For some 
purposes, such a contribution might go on fairly : but, in this instance, 
might not the Association, through the medium of the priests, declare, 
“We are the. persons who represent the Roman Catholics, and we 
have a right to wield the power of the state.” Was this a state of 
tilings to be endured ? If they did not put it down, would it not, 
on the part of the legislature, be an abandonment of that duty which 
they took upon themselves to discharge for the benefit of the coun¬ 
try ? Could the government answer such a dereliction of duty to tho 
country at large ? If the power of the country was seized and 
wielded by those individuals, who could answer for the consequences? 
Even if they were the wisest and worthiest men that ever wielded 
the resources of any state, he would not allow them to have a govern¬ 
ment of this description. He would allow this species of power to 
no man, unless he was subjected to that wholesome control, to that 
salutary check, which was formed for a purpose the most beneficial 


*JNL AWFUL SOCIETIES*. 


331 


—‘►that of preventing those abuses which might exist under any sys¬ 
tem of government. But, to whom were these individuals account¬ 
able ? Where was their responsibility ? Who was to check them? 
Who was to stop their progress ? By whom were they to be tried 
—by whom were they to be rebuked—if found acting mischievously? 
If the executive in the state wielded great powers, the constitution 
pointed out the mode in which it was to be done. But, in this in¬ 
stance, the society assumed the power both of the legislative and 
Executive bodies, and rejected all the checks by which the latter was 
hemmed in and surrounded. Let the house look to the nice balance 
which was preserved in this (for so he must denominate it), our popu¬ 
lar constitution. If the House of Commons could assemble whenever 
it pleased—if it could continue to sit as long as it pleased—why, in 
a short time the entire authority of the state might be swallowed up 
in the representative body. In that case, however, there was an effi¬ 
cient check; but these gentlemen were subject to no control. They 
met when they pleased ; and in point of fact they were in the habit 
of sitting from January to December, and of exercising their powers 
with as much strictness and severity as any absolute monarch could 
do. Gentlemen in that house who did not know what was passing 
in Ireland were not aware of the formidable instrument—more for¬ 
midable than the sword or the purse—which was exercised by this 
association in Ireland. Individuals connected with them went into 
every house and every family; they mixed in all the relations of 
private life, and afterwards detailed what they had seen or heard 
with such a degree of freedom, with such a degree of publicity, with 
so great a want of restraint, that it really required more courage than 
belonged to ordinary men to express a fair and candid opinion. The 
numbers of the association were increased, in consequence, from time 
to time, by a body, he believed, of right unwilling conscripts. That 
body which, in its outset, was viewed without jealousy, had increased 
to three thousand, who had actually met. 

There was but one other topic, and on that his right honourable 
friend the secretary for Ireland had already touched, to which he 
felt it necessary to refer—he meant the interference of the Catholic 
Association with the administration of public justice. He could not 
mceive a more deadly instrument of tyranny, or a proceeding more 
trreconcileable with justice, than this was. The association claimed 
to represent—whom ? To represent six millions of the people of Ire¬ 
land ; and then they claimed the right of denouncing, as an enemy 
to the people of Ireland, and of bringing to the bar of justice, any 
individual whom they chose to accuse (no matter on what grounds) 


v 


4 


832 plunket’s speeches. 

of having violated the rights of that people. Was not this a 
mockery ? Could the party so accused come safely to trial, when 
the grand inquest of the people of Ireland were his accusers ? and 
when those accusers had in their power the application of money 
levied on the people of Ireland ? The consequence must inevitably 
be, that magistrates and persons in authority must yield to such a 
power, or else they must array themselves against it. Looking to 
the consequences, he knew not which was the worst alternative. In 
either case the country must be a prey to wretchedness. The courts 
of justice would be converted into so many arenas, where the pas¬ 
sions of those who appeared in them would be displayed with the 
utmost malignity. There party would be opposed to party, and 
thus would those courts become scenes of factious contention. And, 
when such was the state of things, the Marquis Wellesley must bo 
content to lie under the heavy reproach, the painful imputation, of 
not having allowed this institution to die of its own follies! The 
noble marquis, in accordance with the rest of the government of Ire¬ 
land, wished to put that association down; and, in his (Mr. P.’s) 
opinion, the determination was a wise one. Was it, he asked, to be 
desired, that an institution of this kind should be kept up, merely 
because it was supposed by some individuals, that it was impossible 
to carry the measure of emancipation by any other mode ? Of what' 
materials did gentlemen think the Protestants of Ireland were com¬ 
posed, if they imagined that the Protestant body would not estab¬ 
lish a counter-association? Would they not seek the means of 
defending themselves ? He did not believe that amongst the Catho¬ 
lics there was any present intention of having recourse to force. Hje 
believed they were peaceable in their intention; but he would say 
they were not theiip own masters. They must obey the command 
and behests of those under whom they had placed themselves. Was 
it the intent of those leaders to adopt violent /measures ? He di0 
not say it was ; but he would say that even those leaders were not 
their own masters. If they got the dregs of the population under 
their command, and if that population became irritated, they might 
rest assured, however good their intentions might be, that desperate 
men would take the lead of them, and produce a catastrophe which 
they did not now contemplate. They would be forced down that 
precipice where they now meant to stop, as surely as a man, placed 
on the brink of a steep rock, and pressed from behind by a million gt 
persons, must give way to the power which pushed him onwards. 
It was, therefore, no answer to his argument to say that the inten¬ 
tions of the assjciation were now honest and peaceable. 


UNLAWFUL SOCIETIES. 


333 


He would now turn to another part of the subject. The conven¬ 
tion act, notwithstanding all the reprobatioii that had been bestowed 
upon it, was a very useful act. It was framed by one of the ablest 
lawyers of the day—the late Lord Kilwarden, at that time Mr. 
Wolfe. He was an honest man, a sound lawyer, and an ardent 
lover of the constitution. At the very period of his death, he proved 
his attachment to the constitution. He expressed a wish that no 
man should be brought to trial, or punished for his murder, except 
in accordance with the established and known law of the land. The 
convention act provided for the case of election and actual delegation. 
It did not, however, touch the Catholic Association, where no elec¬ 
tion or delegation actually took place. But did it not come to the same 
thing, if an individual assumed to act on behalf of a great body, and 
called meetings in every county throughout the country ? Was not 
the principle precisely the same ? Here were persons who proposed 
to act in the name and on the behalf of the people. Surely those 
against whom the convention act was directed did no more. It was 
not too much to say—as he had said in the outset—that they were 
called on to legislate in the spirit of the constitution. The salus 
populi , which was truly the suprema lex , demanded that they should 
put an end to this institution. 

But gentlemen said, “ although the mischief is great, you ought 
not to proceed, because there is another remedy—that is the granting 
of Catholic emancipation.” He would state his opinion once for all 
on this subject. He considered Catholic emancipation, and he had 
always done so, as that measure, without which all other measures 
to render Ireland contented and tranquil must be ineffectual. He 
looked upon the emancipation of the Roman Catholics as a claim of 
right and justice. It would baffle human ingenuity to furnish any 
good argument against it. On public grounds of justice emancipation 
ought to be granted; and he thought it was utterly impossible much 
longer to delay it. Early in life he had set out with that impression, 
and he was daily more and more convinced of the accuracy of his 
opinion. He felt the policy as well as the urgency of granting it. 
These were his sentiments. They were such as he had always ex¬ 
pressed, and which he never would abandon. But, when this alter¬ 
native was proposed to the house instead of the measure now before 
them, the question was, “ Can we have it ?” He thought not. But 
those who opposed the proposition now under discussion, turned round 
and said, “ Because we cannot have that measure, do not put down 
the mischief, the existence of which we admit.” This appeared to 
him to be bad reasoning. The question, then arose. “ By who^e fault 


T 


334 


PLUNKET’s SfEECIIES. 


was it that we could not have it ?” Let that question be examined, 
and let those by whose fault it arose give the answer; but, whether 
or not they could name those with whom the fault lay, if fault did 
exist, still there were circumstances which obliged them to resort to 
the present measure, as the only one which could immediately give 
an effectual check to a great growing evil. He would repeat, if there 
were persons who had the power to do away with the necessity for 
the present proceeding, and neglected the means, they were answerable 
for the consequences. 

He would now, with the leave of the house, endeavour to examine 
that question and to meet it fairly, and would be ready to take his 
own share of responsibility on the occasion. Before he proceeded, 
he entreated of honourable gentlemen on the opposite side, that if in 
anything which he might feel it necessary to say for his own justi¬ 
fication, he should appear even for a moment to bear hard upon them, 
they would not consider it as an intentional attack. He assured them 
he had no such intention. Nothing was further removed from his 
wish than any inclination to attack any members for the line of con¬ 
duct they might have thought proper to adopt; but it was necessary 
that he should state all that bore fully upon the point. He only 
wished that, while he thus placed his own conduct under examinatiou, 
and put himself upon his trial, he might be allowed to file a cross¬ 
bill, and put those who accused him on their trial along with him. 
The right honourable and learned gentleman then alluded to his for¬ 
mer conduct with respect to the Catholic question and to ministers, 
in nearly the following words:—Sir, in the year 1813, I was, as I 
trust I ever have been, a zealous friend of the Catholic question. In 
that year the question was introduced by my lamented friend Mr. 
Grattan, to whom the Catholics had already owed so much. Mv 
friend, on that occasion, was pleased to put a value on my services 
to which they were not entitled; but undoubtedly he could not over¬ 
rate the zeal which dictated them. Sir, at that time, I argued the 
question on its plain and firm grounds—those on which it had for¬ 
merly been so ably urged by others. The speech which I then de¬ 
livered was afterwards published. Honourable members may be 
familiar with parts of it, for they have, from time to time, been quoted 
here by several gentlemen. A part of it was last night read by the 
honourable and learned member for Lincoln (Mr. J. Williams), and a 
part on a former occasion by the honourable member for Westminster 
(Sir F. Burdett). I do not mention this as having any objection to 
it; I would not even object to the whole being entered amon" the 
standing orders of the house, to be read by gentlemen as often as it 


UNLAWFUL SOCIETIES. 


335 


answered any purpose. In that speech, I said, that it was to be 
lamented that the cabinet were so divided upon the question of Ca¬ 
tholic emancipation. I added, that if after having given the subject 
their most mature consideration, they could not, as a body, make up 
their minds upon it in one way or another, they were answerable to 
the public for the consequences of leaving such a measure as a con¬ 
stant source of irritation. If the honourable baronet (Sir F. Burdett) 
does not think that this is the meaning of what I said—if I added 
anything more, that might seem to militate stronger against my sub* 
sequent conduct and my present opinion, let him point it out, and I 
assure him I will read it to the house immediately. I admit, with 
him, that the fair import of my observations on that part of the sub¬ 
ject was, that as a friend to Catholic emancipation, I did not think I 
could, with honour, join any administration so divided upon it as the 
then cabinet was. This, sir, is, I think, a full and fair admission of 
what were my sentiments in the year 1813. Now, sir, I as frankly 
and distinctly declare, that I have since changed that opinion. I 
once did think that I could not with honour join an administration, 
divided as were the cabinet of that day on the question of emancipa¬ 
tion. I have now altered that opinion. This declaration cannot be 
considered an evasion of the charge brought against me. It does not 
extenuate it, when I say that once I firmly held a strong opinion, which 
1 have since changed and have acted on that change. But here I 
admit the question arises—Am I justified in having made that change ? 
Have any circumstances occurred since then, which called for that 
change on my part ? I think I shall satisfy the house that there 
have ; and, in defending myself on the ground of those circumstances, 
I cannot avoid throwing some blame on the conduct of honourable 
members opposite. In my observations, in 1813, I stated, that I 
did not think the support given to the question by some members of 
the cabinet was much to be depended upon. 

Mr. Plunket here turned round towards Mr. Canning who sat near him, and 
said:— 

I can assure my right honourable friend, that my opinions in this 
respect had never any reference to him, whose sincere support of the 
measure could never be doubted for an instant. My doubts had re¬ 
ference to the conduct of a noble friend, now no more (Lord London¬ 
derry) ; and I confess I did at that time believe that in the support 
which he gave to the Catholic question, he was not so sincere as I 
afterwards found him. My noble friend, on that occasion, stated that 
I myself was inconsistent in expressing my unwillingness to act with 
a cabinet divided on the anestion of emancipation, as I had before 


336 


plunket’s speeches. 


acted with a ministry who were not all united on that question— 
I allude to that which existed when the Duke of Bedford was lord 
lieutenant of Ireland. In the Grenville administration, it was urged 
by the noble lord, that there were some who were decidedly opposed 
to the Catholic question. Lord Sidmouth was one, and Lord Ellen- 
borough another. I own I did not think, at the time this argument 
was urged, that it was sufficiently conclusive to alter the opinion 
which I had formed. I did believe that the administration of 1813 
were unfriendly to the claims of the Catholics; and I doubted, at 
that time, the sincerity of some members of it, who appeared to be 
favourable to those claims ; but I did think that an administration 
altogether disposed to the concession of those claims might be formed 
out of that side of the house with which I had then the honour to 
act. Sir, in making this declaration of my former sentiments, and 
of the change which has since taken place in them, I beg to be un¬ 
derstood as doing so, solely in justice to my own character and mo¬ 
tives. I do not consider that I am bound to give an explanation of 
my conduct to any man or particular set of men in this house. There 
was not one of the gentlemen with whom I had formerly the honour 
to act, by the wisdom of whose counsels I would in all matters be 
guided, except Lord Grenville. With respect to all the other mem¬ 
bers of that administration, I might have departed from them at any 
moment, without incurring the risk of being upbraided a 3 having 
given up a party to whom I stood pledged. 

But to return to the progress of the Catholic claims. The mea¬ 
sure founded upon those claims continued to make its way. Through 
the zeal and activity of Lord Castlereagh, it obtained an extent of 
legislative support which, while it left me no doubt of its ultimate 
success, also removed every suspicion that I had entertained of the 
sincerity of that noble lord in its support. It was at that time 
argued with reference to the objections supposed to exist on the part 
of the people of England, but not with reference to what were, or 
what were not, the opinions of any boards or committees which had 
been constituted to support it. As the discussion of the measure 
proceeded, the number of its advocates increased, and before the 
death of Mr. Grattan it had already gained very considerably on 
the public attention. After the lamented decease of my valued 
friend, I had the honour of introducing the measure. It was warmly 
supported by some of his majesty’s ministers, and though opposed, 
conscientiously, no doubt, by others, it passed this house, and was 
carried to the Lords, and there, after a warm discussion, it was re¬ 
jected, only by a very inconsiderable majority. Now, sir, when I 


UNLAWFUL SOCIETIES. 


337 


saw those things take place, had I not a right to believe that the 
question could be carried by a divided administration ? I had seen 
it pass this house, and I saw it accidentally negatived by a small 
majority in the other ? Was not this one fair ground for the alte¬ 
ration of the opinion I had formed in 1813 ? 

But, I had other reasons for the change of that opinion. The gen¬ 
tlemen who sit on the opposite side of the house will do me the 
justice to believe, that, whether as a body, or individually, I enter¬ 
tained and do entertain the highest respect for them. I respect the 
manly manner in which they put forward their objections to what 
they conscientiously believe to be wrong on this side. I do not for 
a moment assert that because I may differ from them, they must be 
wrong and I right; but, whichever was right, it must be remem¬ 
bered, that without ceasing to sit on their side of the house, and 
joining them where I could, I had frequent occasions to dissent from 
their opinions. They no doubt adopted the course which they honestly 
believed to be best. I claim the same construction of my con¬ 
duct in that which I pursued. In that which I looked upon as the 
best, I had daily occasions to differ from them. On the question of 
the continuance of the war—a question the most important in its 
nature—1 differed from them. On the question which arose out of the 
disturbances in 1819, I felt obliged to take my stand; and, on pub¬ 
lic grounds, I differed wholly from the view which they took of the 
situation of the country. On the question of parliamentary reform, 
I also differed from them. In short, upon almost all the cardinal 
points connected with the general administration of public affairs, I 
found that our opinions were wholly different. But, it was not I 
alone who differed from them in their views on many important ques¬ 
tions ; I found the public also differed from them on many most ma¬ 
terial points ; and that, not possessing the confidence of the public 
on so many questions, they did not contain within their body the 
materials out of which a cabinet could be formed with any prospect 
of carrying the question of Catholic emancipation. When I thus 
found, that on the one side there were a set of men, who, though 
not altogether agreed on the subject, could carry that question—when 
I found on the other a party, who, though agreed upon that point, 
did not possess sufficient influence to carry it—and when I knew 
that on many very leading questions of great importance I was con¬ 
scientiously opposed to that party, to which I had never stood 
pledged, where, I ask, was my inconsistency in taking office, in obe¬ 
dience to the gracious commands of my sovereign ? I have thus 
stated the reasons which induced me to take office, and to change the 


338 


plunket’s speeches. 


opinion I had expressed in 1813. I am not ashamed of those rea* 
sons, or unwilling that my conduct should be judged by them, either 
in this house or before the public. And though I think those rea¬ 
sons a sufficient justification of the course I have pursued, yet, if 
there should still exist any one who, directly or by implication, 
should impute to me that I have accepted office merely for the sake 
of place or of profit, and without any regard to political consistency, 
I will appeal to the history of my life, and to the sacrifices I have 
made for that consistency, for a proof of the fallacy of the imputa¬ 
tion. Let me but be judged by the facts connected with my whole 
public conduct, and such imputations will fall as unfounded calumnies. 
It was stated, sir, in the first discussion of this session, by the 
honourable and learned member for Winchelsea, that the influence 
of the Catholic Association originated from a feeling, on the part of 
the Catholics, that they were deserted by their old friends. If this 
was intended as an allusion to any supposed conduct of mine, or to 
any supposed irritation on the part of the Catholics at that conduct, 
I must say that the honourable and learned gentleman’s statement is 
not borne out by the fact. I have on four occasions, since I ac¬ 
cepted office, received the public thanks of the Catholics, assembled 
in aggregate and other public meetings, for my services in their 
cause, and those thanks accompanied with expressions of confidence 
in my continuance of those services. I here hold in my hand these 
published resolutions to that effect, but I will not read them. I 
should rather that were done by any other than myself. At a time 
when the Catholic petition was sent to me to be presented, I refused 
to undertake it, unless it were left to myself to use my own discre¬ 
tion as to the time when I should present it, and whether I should 
bring the question forward in that session or not. Those terms were 
conceded, and the confidence of the Roman Catholics in my exertions 
on their behalf remained unabated. That confidence was not with¬ 
drawn, even when I refused to present the petition as from the asso¬ 
ciation. In November last, when it was resolved that the Catholic 
petition should be confided to the care of the honourable baronet 
opposite (Sir Francis Burdett), Mr. "Wolfe, a gentleman of whom it 
is but justice to say, that a man of greater merit or more promising 
talent did not exist in that association—I say, that in November 
last, on the motion of Mr. Wolfe, it was resolved, that the Catholics 
though they had confided the petition to another, still relied confi¬ 
dently upon the continuance of my usual support of the measure. I 
do not think they could have placed their cause in more efficient 
hands than those of the honourable baronet j and I beg to assure 


UNLAWFUL SOCIETIES. 


339 


him, that when he brings the question forward, he shall have my un¬ 
altered support. When he introduces the measure to the house, he 
may feel assured that I shall not get up and walk out, leaving him 
in the unpleasant situation in which I was placed on a former occa¬ 
sion. When I say this, I am far from intending to cast any impu¬ 
tation upon the motives of the honourable baronet on that occasion. 
He did that which he thought best. I do not blame him ; for I do 
not believe that either in or out of parliament there exists a more 
just, consistent, and honourable character, whether viewed in the 
various relations of public or private life. I am aware that the hon¬ 
ourable baronet needs not any praise of mine, but justice compels 
me to say thus much. 

I beg pardon for having occupied so much of the attention of the 
house in speaking of matters personal to myself; but what I have 
stated was, I submit, called for by the fact of my being mentioned* 
day after day, as one cause of the existence of this association, as if 
that could have proceeded from my alteration of an opinion which I 
expressed twelve or thirteen years ago. The right honourable and 
learned gentleman then adverted to an extract from his speech in 
1813, which had been read yesterday by the honourable and learned 
member for Lincoln, as a sort of evidence of another act of incon¬ 
sistency on his part. He would now repeat the passage which the 
honourable and learned gentleman had quoted, and show the very 
unfair advantage which had been taken, by separating two passages 
which followed close one upon the other in the speech. The passage 
was—“ Sir, it appears to me most unfair to visit on the Roman Ca¬ 
tholics the opinions and the conduct of such public assemblies as pro¬ 
fess to act for them; if they labour under a real and a continuing 
grievance, and one which justifies on their* part a continued claim, 
they must act through the medium of popular assemblies, and must 
of course be exposed to all the inconveniences which attend discus¬ 
sion in such assemblies. In all such places, we know that unbounded 
applause attends the man who occupies the extreme positions of opi¬ 
nion, and that the extravagance of his expression of such opinion 
will not be calculated to diminish it. That there may be many in¬ 
dividuals anxious to promote their own consequence, at the expense 
of the party whose interests they profess to advocate, is an evil in¬ 
separable from such a state of things; and amongst those who sin¬ 
cerely wish to promote the interests of the cause, much may fairly 
be attributed to the heat naturally generated by long-continued op¬ 
position; much to the effects of disappointed hope; much to the 
resentment excited and justified by insolent and virulent opposition.’* 


340 


plunket’s speeches. 


The arguments which he (Mr. P.) then used were by no means in¬ 
consistent with those he now held. He then condemned such asso¬ 
ciations ; so he did at present; but he thought now as then, that 
the conduct of a few individuals ought not to be visited upon the 
whole body. If this was the whole of what he had then said on the 
subject, it would not prove inconsistency, but would show that he 
was consistent on both occasions; but, as he had made another re¬ 
mark at that time which would more fully explain his present mean¬ 
ing, he thought it a want of candour in the honourable and learned 
gentleman not to have made any reference to that part of the speech. 
When he attacked a man for the inconsistency of his present opinions 
with those which he had delivered thirteen years ago, he ought, in 
common justice, to have stated what those opinions were. If he had 
only read the paragraph of his speech immediately preceding that 
which he quoted, it would have put his present and former senti¬ 
ments on this point in their proper light, and shown that in both he 
was perfectly consistent. The passage omitted by the honourable 
and learned gentleman was this: “ Sir, the conduct of the Roman 
Catholics of Ireland has been resorted to as an argument for aban¬ 
doning the pledge of the last session. Sir, I am not an advocate for 
their intemperance; I am free to say that there have been some pro¬ 
ceedings on the part of the public bodies who affect to act for them, 
altogether unjustifiable. Their attempts to dictate to the entire body 
how they are to act on each particular political occurrence—their 
presuming to hold an inquisition on the conduct of individuals in 
the exercise of their elective franchise, and putting them under the 
ban of their displeasure, because they vote for their private friends, 
and abide by their plighted engagements—all this is a degree of in¬ 
quisitorial authority, unexampled and insufferable ; and this by per¬ 
sons professing themselves the advocates of unbounded freedom and 
unlimited toleration, at the moment when they are extending their 
uuparleying tyranny into the domestic arrangements of every Catho¬ 
lic family in the country.” One would have thought, in reading this 
passage, that by a happy anticipation he was foreseeing at that 
period that which was happening at the present. The passage pro¬ 
ceeded thus : “ Sir, I am equally disgusted with the tone of unquali¬ 
fied demand, and haughty rejection of all condition or accommoda¬ 
tion so confidently announced by them; nor can I palliate the 
intemperance of many of their public speeches, nor the exaggeration 
and violence of some of their printed publications. To this tone I 
never wish to see the legislature yield; but as this indecent clamour 
is not to compel them to yield what is unreasonable, I trust it will 




UNLAWFUL SOCIETIES. 


341 


not influence them to withhold what is just.” Now, he thought 
that if he had been endeavouring, without the appearance of egotism, 
to procure some gentleman to introduce his former conduct as com¬ 
pared with his present, he could not have selected any person who 
could have been more effectual in showing his consistency than the 
honourable and learned gentleman on this occasion. 

One word more as to the effect of the association. It was, he 
thought, calculated to check the disposition of the people of this 
country, which he perceived was daily inclining them in favour of 
the Catholic claims. He differed from his right honourable friend 
(Mr. Peel) on this point, and thought that the public feeling on this 
point was not so confined as his right honourable friend had sup¬ 
posed. The people of England were beginning to see the question 
in its proper light. They perceived that the game of governing by 
division would no longer succeed, but that to have any hope of suc¬ 
cess in the mode of treating that country, a system of conciliation 
must be adopted. They began to be aware, that if a great deal was 
not done to blight the gifts which Providence had bestowed upon that 
country, Ireland would not hang as a burthen on, but become one of 
the most fertile sources of, British prosperity. The idea of the sepa¬ 
ration of the two countries was idle and absurd. It was possible, 
that in the lapse of ages England might share the fate of other great 
empires. Whenever she did fall, Ireland would most certainly fall 
with her; but separate they never could be. To hold out the idea 
of their separation as a threat to this country was puerile nonsense. 
In the event of a war England might rely upon Ireland. It was but 
an act of justice to his countrymen to say, that they would be ever 
found foremost amongst the defenders of the empire. But foreign 
nations not having the same means of knowing the real state of that 
country, but judging from slight appearances, might be led to form 
opinions with respect to its disposition towards England, as might 
involve us in a foreign war. So that to the people of England the 
state of the sister kingdom was of great importance, inasmuch as it 
might be the means of inducing other nations to disturb our peace. 

He would not trespass longer on the attention of the house. It 
was almost unnecessary to add, that amongst the mischiefs which the 
association was calculated to produce, that was not the least which 
removed the discussion of the Catholic question from the ground of 
sound argument and good policy, on which they were invulnerable, 
and substituted an idle display of physical force, as if physical force 
were intended to be arrayed against them. As a sincere and zealous 
friend of the Catholics, he would advise them to leave off the high 


342 


plunket’s speeches. 


tone which they had so long used. Their cause had great merits, 
and needed not such adventitious aids. With respect to the effect 
of the proposed measure, he was decidedly of opinion that it would 
be most favourably received by the best-informed and most respec¬ 
table of the Irish nation. He did believe that people in that country 
were beginning to see the advantage which would result to them, 
from taking their cause out of such hands. But it was said that 
the association spoke the sentiments of the Irish people. So they 
did—so did he (Mr. P.), and so would every man who advocated 
the cause of emancipation. But, beyond that, the association did not 
represent the feelings of the country; and he most positively denied 
that the people of Ireland would think of resenting the abolition of 
that association. The clergy and the country gentlemen were begin¬ 
ning to get tired of seeing their just influence with the people taken 
from them by this body; and must naturally be favourable to any 
measure by which it would be restored. Even the members of the 
association itself would acquiesce quietly in the law which would put an 
end to their power. Very many of them were sensible and clever 
men, and must be aware of the inutility of opposition to the will of 
the legislature. The gentleman who was the most prominent mem¬ 
ber of that body—Mr. O’Connell—would himself be of this opinion. 
Mr. O’Connell was a man of great talent and acquirements. He filled 
the highest rank at the bar which the laws permitted a gentleman 
of his religion to occupy; and was deservedly considered as a man 
of eminence in his profession. He only knew him professionally; 
but he had reason to believe him to be most amiable in all the rela¬ 
tions of private life. In his political sentiments, he looked upon him 
as wild and extravagant; but, nevertheless, he was persuaded that 
if this bill passed, neither he, nor Lord Fingall, nor Lord Gormans- 
town, nor any other gentleman connected with the association, would 
ever descend to any pettyfogging tricks to evade its operation. He 
believed that the great body of the people of the country would gladly 
seize the passing of the proposed bill as a favourable opportunity for 
getting rid of the influence of that body. 

The debate was one of the ablest that occurred upon the Catholic question, 
and was particularly distinguished by a masterly narrative statement of Canning as 
to his own policy, and that of various cabinets in which he had acted, towards 
the Catholics. Brougham, who followed him, contrasted the language of Plun¬ 
ket’s Union speeches with the alleged violent debates of the association—a home 
thrust which Plunket did not attempt to parry. Leave was given to introduce 
the bill by a majority of 155, and it passed in the course of the month, unac¬ 
companied, however, by any measures of relief, at which great indignation was 
felt in Ireland, until O’Connell “ drove a coach and four” through the act, and 


CATHOLIC CLAIMS. 


343 


formed the new Catholic Association “ for purposes of public and private charity, 
and such other purposes as are not prohibited by the statute.” When the attor¬ 
ney-general returned to Ireland, he found the association there before him, quite 
impregnable to indictment and if possible more powerful than before. 


THE CATHOLIC CLAIMS. 

February 28, 1825. 

On the day after the third reading of the Unlawful Societies Bill, Sir F. Burdett, 
by authority of the Association, presented the Catholic petition. The govern¬ 
ment divided in the debate—Canning'for, Peel against the motion—the English 
solicitor-general also against, after whom the Irish attorney-general. The im¬ 
perfect report of this great speech is much to be regretted. 

Mr. Plunket said, that after the repeated discussions, year after 
year, which this question had undergone—after the recent protracted 
debates upon Irish affairs—and more particularly after it had fallen 
so often to himself individually to claim the indulgence of the house 
upon this very subject, he should have been strongly disposed, on the 
present occasion, to have repeated his opinion by a silent vote. 
There were, however, peculiar circumstances which compelled him, 
though reluctantly, not to allow this debate to pass without giving 
the reasons which still governed his vote. In doing so, he still felt 
that it would be bad taste to increase his trespass on their kindness 
by taking a wide range of observation on this occasion, or to do 
more than to take a few leading points, and confine himself strictly 
to their necessary consideration. He thought himself peculiarly 
called upon to deliver his sentiments, as the management of the 
question had been transferred from himself to the honourable baronet 
opposite. He trusted that no man would suppose he harboured a 
motive so mean or unworthy, as to suffer his sentiments to be warped 
by the change of hands into which the petition of the Catholics had 
passed. He was ready to bear testimony to the judicious and dis¬ 
creet manner in which the honourable baronet had introduced the 
motion—to the temper, the perspicuity, the reason, and the justice, 
with which he had recommended it to their consideration; and he 
should endeavour to imitate the conciliatory tone, of which the hon¬ 
ourable baronet had set so eminent an example, and in arguing this 
question to keep clear of all topics of irritation on either side. As to 
the particular time when they were called upon to discuss the Catho~ 
lie claims, he did not mean to express what would have been his 
opinion had he been consulted on that point; he should have found 


344 


plunket’s speeches. 


it, what he had no doubt the honourable baronet had done, a point 
of much embarrassment, not as relating to his own opinions, but to 
those of others, entitled to some degree of deference. For himself, 
he had long since made up his mind on this question. With deep 
and intense feelings for the maintenance of the best rights of the 
empire, his decided and unalterable conviction was, that this measure 
could not be too speedily carried. No time was too early for its adop¬ 
tion ; none could arrive when it should not have his most zealous 
support. With respect to what had fallen from his honourable and 
learned friend, the solicitor-general, why did he recur to the time of 
discussing the question—why did he call upon those who differed 
from him to consider that part of the consideration ? He must ask 
his honourable and learned friend, before he assented to go into that 
argument with him, at what time he would be prepared to give his 
consent to such a motion as this ? He feared that his honourable 
and L arned friend had made up his mind to a perpetual opinion upon 
this question, which would render, so far as he was concerned, any 
argument as to the expediency of time a useless waste of words. 
Were the time one of perfect calmness and tranquillity, doubtless his 
honourable and learned friend would say, “ Why agitate the topic 
now —non quieta movere —nobody calls for such a discussion.” 
Were the time one of trouble and difficulty, then the expression 
would be the other way—“ This is no time for embarking in such 
matters; every thing is too unsettled.” So that in calm or in storm, 
there would be found no time that was not quite inopportune, in his 
honourable and learned friend’s view of the matter. He entirely 
agreed iu the observation of the honourable and eloquent member for 
Yorkshire, that there was a peculiar grace and fitness in the present 
time, for the concession of these claims to the Catholics. Some of 
the friends of that body had been induced, by what they felt to be 
a most painful necessity, to enact a measure of restriction against 
certain parts of that body. It was, therefore, just the time to show 
the Catholics generally, that, notwithstanding what he alluded to, 
parliament was ready to consider the justice of their claims. He had 
not the same means of judging as other gentlemen had, what were 
the sentiments of the people of England upon the subject; but he 
had of late spoken with men of various habits of thinking respecting 
it, and not one had he found who was prepared to say that this 
question was never to be carried. He had others to contend against, 
and they were the most formidable opponents of the measure, be¬ 
cause they met it boldly upon its own merits, and disdaiued the 
paltry trick of appealing to the passions or prejudices of any classes 


CATHOLIC CLAIMS. 


345 


of the people; who declared, that if they thought the accomplish¬ 
ment of such a motion as this would effect the tranquillity of Ireland, 
they would at once yield. These candid and able opponents were 
among the best friends of the Established church, and when he heard 
that declaration from their lips, must he not believe that, in the 
measure which he advocated, there was nothing—there could be 
nothing—calculated to endanger the stability of the church of Ire¬ 
land ? He solemnly assured the house, that, though this measure 
was as dear to him as it could be to any man, if he thought it could 
risk in any degree the security of the church of Ireland, instead of 
being its advocate, he should be found among the foremost ranks of 
its warmest opponents. He supported the question, because of its 
perfect reconcileableness with the stability of the Protestant church ; 
and he supported it further, because he thought the passing of this 
bill would be found a measure eminently calculated to support that 
church. 

Some allusion had been made to former bills, and, among the rest, 
to one of his own, upon this subject. To show how clearly on all these 
occasions the security of the Established church was provided for, 
he would beg leave to read a paragraph from his own bill of 1821, 
which was copied from the preceding bill of Mr. Grattan. It was as 
follows: “ And whereas the Protestant Episcopal Church of England 
and Ireland, and the doctrine, discipline, and government thereof, 
and likewise the Protestant Presbyterian Church of Scotland, and 
the doctrine, discipline, and government thereof, are, as between 
Great Britain and Scotland, severally and respectively, permanently 
and inviolably in these realms.” These were the recitements of the 
two bills. How, then, could it be said, that no adequate provision 
had been made for the security of the Established church ? His 
honourable and learned friend had promised to argue this question upon 
its constitutional bearings; but he had listened in vain for the pro¬ 
mised argument. He had heard, indeed, from him a good deal about 
the Catholic Association; a good deal about the avowed intentions 
of the Catholic clergy; but nothing, or nearly nothing, of the con¬ 
stitutional grounds on which he meant to resist the question. The 
claim of the Roman Catholics was a claim to be admitted members 
of a free representative government—to be admitted to institutions, 
the advantages of which belonged equally to every subject of that 
government. He did not say that the right would admit of no ex¬ 
ception or control. There was nothing in the social fabric concern¬ 
ing which he would venture to make that assertion. Even the en¬ 
joyment of natural rights must be qualified, in a state of society, witfi 


346 


plunket’s speeches. 


conditions. Still more must this be connected with the artificial 
rights given by the mere existence of society: but these conditions 
ought only to be imposed in the degree which would be the most 
likely to protect and preserve the rights and privileges of all. Whe¬ 
ther the rights enjoyed by individuals were of the character of natu¬ 
ral or of chartered rights, they were liable to be withheld on the 
ground of general expediency. But, then, the expediency must be 
clearly and unquestionably made out; and this was a maxim of the 
constitution, which went no less, though upon more circumspection 
and discrimination, to affect the most obvious rights of individuals. 
He directed the attention of the house to the circumstances under 
which our ancestors had thought it necessary to limit those rights, in 
a very peculiar manner, with respect to Roman Catholics. At the 
Reformation, it was found necessary to deal with those rights which 
were fully permitted before that period. The main object, then, was 
to protect the rights of the throne against the claims of a foreign 
power, and against the disaffection of those subjects who might reserve 
their allegiance for that foreign power, to the detriment of the throne, 
and of the state in general. This being the object, how did they 
proceed ? They guarded, in the first place, against the evils ex¬ 
isting. There were the claims of the Pope to interfere with the in¬ 
terest, not simply of the Roman Catholic religion, which then was the 
established religion of the state, but he claimed also the right of disposing 
of benefices, of naming the clergy, of deposing the monarch, and of ab¬ 
solving the people from their allegiance. The legislature accordingly 
provided—first, for the absolute and unconditional integrity and in¬ 
violability of the church; further, for the spiritual prerogative of 
the crown, forbidding at the same time the exercise of any other than 
the established religion. What were the mischiefs dreaded, and what 
the provisions of the legislature ? To prevent the claims of the Pope, 
or any other foreign power, to interfere with the church. Did they 
hear of any claim to that interference, or to the right of deposing 
kings, or absolving their subjects from their allegiance ? Was that 
believed or asserted by any man in either kingdom ? Dangers there 
were still; but of a different kind. Those enactments were, therefore, 
gradually done away. The law forbidding the exercise of any other 
religion was done away by the repeal of the act against recusancy. 
The only remaining one which could be at all supposed to contain 
that spirit, was the act of uniformity ; which could not be at all af¬ 
fected by the proposed measure. Thus far did parliament go, down 
to the time of the Reformation. The wisdom of our ancestors watched 
the progress of time, and took their measures accordingly. In the 


CATHOLIC CLAIMS. 


347 


reign of Charles the Second they observed a new danger—a monarch 
careless about religion, or secretly affected to an unconstitutional one, 
who was to be followed by a Popish successor. Here their provi¬ 
dence was as remarkable as before. They provided a remedy, not 
adapted entirely to meet the evil, but the only one they could obtain; 
which was to require certain oaths to be taken by those who were 
ready to take seats in parliament. That was found insufficient on 
the accession of James II., who openly maintained the Roman Ca¬ 
tholic religion against the constitution and the rights of his people. 
The legislature finding this resource fail, then prudently shifted their 
ground, and had recourse to a measure at once wise, bold, and salu¬ 
tary. ( They drove the monarch from the throne, for violating the 
constitution, and they resolved that the sovereign power should be 
held inviolable and unalterable in Protestant hands. Did he deuy 
that the throne must be Protestant ? Was he doing anything to 
weaken its Protestant supremacy ? No such thing. Was there any 
mode or device to make that supremacy surer, which the genius of 
any man could suggest ? He was ready to incorporate it with the 
proposed bill, or to have it introduced as a separate, yet concomitant 
measure. What were the dangers which afterwards threatened the 
establishment? The claims of an exiled family driven from the 
throne, and the plots and agitations of a disaffected party retained 
in its interests. He admitted, freely, that the Roman Catholics of 
that period were suspected justly. What was the course taken by 
parliament ? All the former measures against the Papists were con¬ 
tinued. They were held to be not good subjects, and were to be 
trusted neither with honour nor power in the state. They were 
coerced in their persons and property—they were deprived of their 
civil rights—they became sunk and degraded into that wretched 
state, from which they were relieved by the benignity of the last reign. 
This was a natural course of reasoning, though he did not conceive 
it to be a very wise one; but it showed that our ancestors adapted 
their remedies to the evils then existing, and pressing upon their 
apprehensions. 

In 1791, anew danger and an entirely new difficulty presented 
themselves. The Roman Catholics had proved themselves truly sub¬ 
missive—they had been uniform in their peaceable conduct. Though 
rebellion had twice raged in Scotland, no movement was made in Ire¬ 
land in favour of the exiled family. It had been found that the Ca¬ 
tholics, so sunk and degraded, were ineffectual to the protection of 
the government—that by the depression and privations imposed upon 
them, the heart’s blood of the state was impoverished. The landlord 


348 


plunket’s speeches. 


found that the lands could not be sufficiently cultivated. The valu¬ 
able energies of labour were everywhere paralysed. If the annals 
of that period were to be properly read and considered, the late king 
would be for ever illustrious in history, entitled as he was to the es¬ 
pecial gratitude of every Roman Catholic in Ireland. That system 
of beneficence which he introduced had been now in practice for the 
space of forty years. It had raised the Roman Catholics of Ireland 
to a state of affluence, comfort, and respectability. It had given 
them a perfect equality of civil rights. It had caused them to par¬ 
ticipate in the advantages of the institutions. What was the dan¬ 
ger which they had now to dread ? Not the Pope—not the claims 
of foreign potentates—not the assumption of a power to dissolve the 
allegiance of the people—not the interests of an exiled family. The 
Roman Catholics had perfected the proofs of their obedience, and had 
been admitted to their civil rights, as good subjects who were en¬ 
titled to everything which they could reasonably claim. The danger 
now to be apprehended was perfectly new, though not inferior, he 
admitted, to that of a dispute concerning the supremacy or the suc¬ 
cession to the crown. Better measures had prevailed—the state had 
acquired sounder health—a current of wholesome blood was felt— 
feelings of conciliation had been manifested—the Roman Catholic 
subjects, though not directly raised to power in the state, had ao 
quired possession of the means of danger, and were on a par with 
themselves. The honourable member for Louth had spoken alarm¬ 
ingly of the six, or five, or four millions of persons in the communion 
of the Roman Catholic church. Now, what we feared was, to see four 
millions—taking them at the lowest—of subjects, having wealth, 
power, and respectability on their side, and awakened to a full sense 
of their condition, coming up, year after year, to claim the rights 
aud privileges enjoyed by their fellow-subjects, and retiring dejected 
and disappointed. That was the danger which the house had to 
cope with. Yet the honourable member for Louth would persist in 
telling them that they were not to look at the dangers of their own 
times, but to go back to the Reformation, to the reign of James 
II., and to the Revolution. He would say that the present danger 
was the greatest, perhaps the only one for them to consider. 

The other argument proves a want of acquaintance with human 
nature ; it bespeaks our ignorant use and application of the manual 
of history. Time, as has been said by one of the clearest observers 
of his effects, is the greatest innovator of all. While man may 
sleep or stop in his career, the course of time is rapidly changing 
the aspect of all human affairs. All that a wise government can 


CATHOLIC CLAIMS. 


349 


do is to keep as close as possible, to the wings of Time, to watch 
his progress, and accommodate their motion to his flight. Arrest his 
course you cannot; but you may vary the forms and aspects of 
your institutions, so as to reflect his varying aspects and forms. 
If this be not the spirit which animates you, philosophy must be 
impertinent, and history no better thau an old almanack. The 
riches of knowledge would serve no better than the false money 
of a swindler, put upon us at a value which once circulated, but 
had long since ceased. Prudence and experience would be no better 
for protection than dotage and error. Did he admit that the danger 
here was serious ? He did not therefore inculcate dread. If the 
Catholics were to come down to the bar to claim their rights with 
clamour and shouts, he would laugh at them. Should they use threats 
and defiances, he would despise them. Parliament could subdue any 
force raised on their side. JBut if they merely claimed the rights of 
free constitution, he had no armour to oppose to them. He had no 
mode of dealing with them, but to open the arms of friendship—to 
admit them, as allies, as equals, to share the benefits and join with 
him in the defence of the constitution ; be it against foreign or do¬ 
mestic enemies; be it in peace, or be it in war. 

They were told that there was a bar—that the principles of the 
constitution were opposed to the admission of the Roman Catholics. 
He had read with eagerness—he had carried on his researches with 
deep anxiety—he had endeavoured hard to find out w'here that prin¬ 
ciple could be discovered, and he solemnly declared that he could not 
discover it. Referring to the distinction which had been taken be¬ 
tween civil and political rights, was the fact so, that the constitution 
did not admit any to political power, however completely in the pos¬ 
session of their civil rights, unless they subscribed the doctrines of 
the Established church ? Did not every day’s experience disprove 
that assumption ? Was not the honourable member for Norwich 
(Mr. W. Smith), whom they listened to day after day with satisfac¬ 
tion, an example of the contrary ? Where was the alarm for the 
disjunction of the interests of church and state ? Had there not 
been a lord chancellor of England who was a Dissenter ? A man 
who refused to subscribe the doctrines of the church of England had, 
in his official capacity, issued writs of summons to the peers of Great 
Britain, and appended the great seal to them. He alluded to the 
late Lord Rosslyn. Were honourable members who contend for this 
ignorant of what had been doing in Ireland ? The test laws had 
been there repealed for fifty years, and the dissenting influence had 
been on the decline ever since. When that repeal was talked of 


z 


350 


plunket’s speeches. 


there was great alarm. Dean Swift, with all his wit and talents, 
felt and spoke of it with horror and desperation, and prognosticatevi 
from it the immediate downhill of the state. For forty years past it 
h id not been ljeard of, and was almost forgotten by the house; the 
Dissenters had ever since declined. Had the Roman Catholic influ¬ 
ence declined in the same period ? The former had been ever since 
withering under the hand of liberty; the latter had been fostered and 
cherished by severity. 

But, it was said, the Roman Catholics might have their civil rights; 
they must not, however, expect political power; that the constitution 
prohibited. Was there nothing of political power in what they pos¬ 
sessed ? They had the right of electing members to serve in parlia¬ 
ment. Was that no exercise of political power? They acted as 
magistrates. Was that no exercise of political power? They served 
as jurors. Was not that exercising political power ? This country 
had liberally imparted education to them. Did not that put the 
means of political power within their reach ? Where was this line 
of distinction between civil and political power marked iu the consti¬ 
tution ? The warmth of discussion apart, he denounced the doctrine 
as inconsistent with the principles of our free constitution, and only 
fitted for the meridian of a despotic government. He had once en¬ 
deavoured to define civil liberty to the house ; he had used the de¬ 
scription which he found in the books—“ Civil liberty consists in 
doing all that which the law allows a man to do.” But he went 
bsyond that. There is a civil liberty, the enjoyment of which is given 
by the laws themselves. Once admit men to enjoy property, personal 
rights, and their usual consequences, and on what pretence could 
they be excluded from the institutions by which the whole of those 
possessions must be guarded ? 

It was asked, what have the Roman Catholics to complain of ? 
they are only excluded from the parliament, the bench, and the high 
offices of state ; which meant that they were only excluded from the 
making and administering of the laws, from all posts of honour and dig¬ 
nity in the state. These were bagatelles, for which, according to the 
argument, it was not worth while for the Catholics to contend—and, 
therefore, it was scarcely worth the while of the parliament to re¬ 
fuse. How would the honourable and learned gentlemen who used 
this argument like to be excluded from their chance of obtaining these 
trifles ? He begged to ask if these were not the very nothings 
which Englishmen would cheerfully lay down their lives ? 

Did they still talk of the danger of admitting the Catholics ? 
put it to the house to consider, whether they would willingly see 








CATHOLIC CLAIMS. 


351 


a body represented anywhere but within the walls of parliament. To 
shut them out from parliament, after giving them everything which 
rendered them consequential short of it, was to teach them to array 
themselves elsewhere. Somewhere else they must go, if the house 
could not make room for them. God forbid the recurrence of bad 
times! but it might happen that a bad prince might mount the throne, 
and then perhaps, being refused admission where they had a right to 
it, they would range themselves behind the throne, and assist in the 
sacrifice of the public liberties. His honourable and learned friend 
the solicitor-general was satisfied as to the laity, whom he considered 
as sufficiently good subjects. The danger which his honourable and 
learned friend apprehended was from the Roman Catholic priests. He 
dreaded, in a country where the majority of the people differed from 
the religion of the state, the uncontrollable and all-controlling influence 
of the priests, who were themselves detached from the state. France, 
it had been said, had of late shown herself particularly tenacious on 
the subject of religion; and, looking at what might be her views with 
regard to Ireland, it was said that there might be great danger. He 
I supposed that the bill was intended to diminish so much of the influ¬ 
ence of the Roman Catholic clergy over their flocks as arose out of their 
present grievances. Here was a danger admitted on both sides to 
be actually existing, and here was a measure proposed by the honour¬ 
able baronet to meet that danger. Let the measure for bringing 
those priests within the pale of the constitution be proved to be cal¬ 
culated to increase their influence, and he would say something to it. 

Before I go further, I would ask those honourable members who 
admit the dangers which exist, whether they are prepared with a re¬ 
medy? Some may, perhaps, tell me that I am to trust to time and to 
proselytism. I admit that much may be expected from proselytism, 
and that it is likely to be increased by the pious and exemplary lives, 
the kind and charitable behaviour, and the religious example of the 
Protestant clergy ; and I am of opinion that the time will come when 
the religious differences between Protestants and Catholics will be 
much lessened, and, though we may not see it, that our children’s 
children may be witnesses of it. But, sir, this prospect is distant and 
uncertain; the dangers which surround us are pressing and imminent. 
So long as you continue a line of demarcation between Protestants 
and Catholics, so long do you hold up the latter as aliens to the state. 
And, while you do this, let it be considered that your proselytism 
■will be at a stand. For any man who should become a Protestant 
under such restrictions would be considered an apostate, a wretch who 
changed his religion only for purposes of gain. Before I conclude, 





352 


plunket’s speeches. 


I must take the liberty of stating shortly to the house a few of tine 
measures which I consider calculated to remedy the existing evils. 
iFirst, I would take away all grounds of grievance, by placing the 
Roman Catholic on an equal footing with the Protestant. I would 
do this in order to prevent their union in one body against one com¬ 
mon oppression. Next, I would, as has been recommended by an 
honourable friend of mine, make a suitable provision for the Roman 
Catholic priesthood. I have been told that the Roman Catholic priest 
would not consent to such an arrangement. Let me assure my hon¬ 
ourable friend that he is deceived in his statement. The Roman Ca¬ 
tholic clergy would not, it is true, purchase a permanent provision by 
the disgrace of having abandoned their flocks. But if Catholic emanci¬ 
pation were granted—if the laity were once relievedfrom the disabilities 
under which they laboured—the Catholic priesthood would anxiously 
and gratefully receive a permanent provision. Honourable members are 
much mistaken, and know but little of Ireland, if they imagine that 
the Irish people or the Irish priesthood wish to usurp the property 
of the Established church. The church of Ireland may be in danger 
of being pulled down from other causes ; but if it were pulled down 
to-morrow, and the livings offered to the Roman Catholic priests, the 
laity would not allow them to accept them. I speak this in the hear¬ 
ing of many who are acquainted with Ireland, and who must know 
that it is not the wish of the laity to have their priests raised to in¬ 
fluence and authority by such means. The gentry of Ireland respect 
their priesthood, but I can assure the house they are not priest-ridden. 

Before I sit down, sir, I must say one word more as to the danger 
which I conceive to exist at the present period. If the priesthood 
were to express a desire to get possession of the church property, the 
laity would at once cry out against them. But, I would ask, are the 
Protestant clergy right in saying, that they are determined to resist 
the claims of the Roman Catholics so long as they themselves existed ? 
What was this but giving a form and substance to that which was 
before but a wild chimera ? What was it but compelling the Ca¬ 
tholics to say, we must now oppose the Protestant clergy in self-de¬ 
fence, for, until they shall be deprived of their property, we have no 
chance of obtaining our political rights ? All who know me, know 
that I am, and ever have been, a zealous supporter of the Established 
church; but never, even when I have been most zealous in its sup¬ 
port, do I conceive myself to have rendered it better service than in 
giving it this warning, and placing its ministers on their guard. Sir, 
1 feel convinced, that if a foreign enemy were landing on our coast 
to-morrow, this house would not grant to the Roman Catholics any. 





CATHOLIC CLAIMS. 


353 


thing which it could not concede with honour and with safety to the 
Established church. I trust to God no such period may arrive. I 
feel that if it ever does, it must be far, very far distant. But I know 
that, were it to come, such would be your firm and irrevocable deter¬ 
mination. And, sir, it is because I know there exists no such danger 
—it is because I feel that we are in a time of perfect safety and se¬ 
curity, that I call upon you to do that now, which a sense of justice 
ought to compel you to do even in a time of the greatest danger. Let 
me not be told, sir, that the people or the priesthood of Ireland wih 
refuse to accept any concession which we may make to them. I say, in 
the language of my honourable friend the member for the county of 
York, that it is for us to legislate; that it is for us to do what is right; 
and if the Catholics of Ireland should refuse to accept what we offer them, 
they will be deprived of all power to do injury, because they will be 
deprived of all power to make just complaint. One word more, and 
I have done. The alarm which exists with respect to the Roman 
Catholics of Ireland, is, I can assure the house, unfounded. The 
Roman Catholics of Ireland are not only tranquil but loyal. Nay, 
more, they are determined to continue loyal, no matter what may be 
the result of their application to parliament, because they feel satisfied 
that the growing feeling of liberality towards them, and the enlightened 
policy of England, will not allow them to labour long under their pre¬ 
sent disqualifications. For myself, I feel perfectly convinced of the 
loyalty of the Roman Catholics ; and if the government of France 
were speculating upon their disloyalty, be assured of it, they will find 
themselves much mistaken ; for, should the day ever come when that 
loyalty would be put to the test, they would be found to a man rally¬ 
ing round the standard of the British constitution. And why is it 
that such conduct is to be expected from them ? It is because they 
have under that constitution enjoyed thirty-five years of conciliation 
and progressive improvement. It is because they trust to the kind¬ 
ness and the wisdom of the British legislature. But, sir, we want 
something more from the Irish people than mere loyalty; we waul 
their affection; we want their confidence; we want their cordiality; 4 
we want to induce them to deal with us as friends and brothers, in- 
order to put an end to those anxieties which disturb us, and free us 
from that feverish state, in which we have so long been placed. I 
beg pardon, sir, for having trespassed at such length upon the atten¬ 
tion of the house, and conclude by giving my most cordial support to 
the motion of the honourable baronet. 

Canning had come down to the house from a sick bed, and on a crutch, to give 
his support to the motion. The opposition could afford to look on and allow the 



354 


plunket’s speeches. 


government to fight the question out, for Peel took upon himself the audacious 
task of replying to both his illustrious colleagues. Brougham closed the debate, 
and the motion was carried by a majority of 13. Resolutions upon which to base a 
bill were instantly assented to, and a committee formed to prepare the same. It 
passed the Commons, and was lost on the second reading in the Lords; with all 
its accompaniments, except the bill against the Association. 


ELECTIVE FRANCHISE IN IRELAND BILL. 


1825. 


April 26, 

This is the debate upon the forty-shilling freeholders. Brougham had pas¬ 
sionately referred to the Duke of York’s famous declaration in the House oi 
Lords on the preceding day, that in every position wherein he might be placed 
by Providence, he would resist the measure of Catholic emancipation—the appre¬ 
hension of which had caused the insanity of his father. Plunket rose to order. 
Brougham denied that he had been disorderly. “ In the parliament to which 
the right honourable gentleman formerly belonged, such a course might have been 
pursued; but not in an English parliament. * * * An honourable 

and learned gentleman (himself the most disorderly in the world), shall get 
up and complain that you are out of order, not because anything irregular has 
been said, but quid timet , merely because he apprehends something possibly may 
be.” Sir John Newport spoke just before Plunket, but had to leave the house 
from indisposition. 

I shall not detain the house long; and I confess, sir, that I nevei 
rose to address the house with more painful feelings than at the pre¬ 
sent moment. I am particularly glad that my right honourable friend, 
whom indisposition has just compelled to leave the house, has pre¬ 
ceded me on the present occasion ; because I feel greatly cheered by 
the reflection, that the sentiments of one of the best and most tried 
friends of his country differ, in almost every particular, from those of 
my honourable and learned friend. I am desirous of explaining to 
the house the ground on which I took the liberty of calling my hon¬ 
ourable and learned friend to order. I do not regret the course that 
I took; on the contrary, I feel its propriety still more strongly after 
what has fallen from the honourable and learned member since I 
adopted it. I do not, either from my habits in the Irish parliament, 
to which my honourable and learned friend thought proper to allude, 
or from the little experience I have acquired in this house, think he 
was entitled to say that I called him to order before he had really 
committed a breach of it. He seems to have interpreted rather too 
largely the declaration from the chair, because, sir, you delicately 
avoided telling him in direct terms that he was grossly out of order. 
I am fully aware that though it is not strictly regular to allude to 
what passes in the other house of parliament, it would be absurd t« 






ELECTIVE FRANCHISE. 


So 5 


watch over-anxiously particular instances of deviations from strict re¬ 
gularity, provided they remain within reasonable and proper limits. 
But I will call to the recollection of any body who heard my hon¬ 
ourable and learned friend, whether this was not an occasion on which 
mischief was about to be done, and on which I was warranted on an 
interference, which, on another occasion, might have appeared punc¬ 
tilious and pedantic. 

In one sentiment which fell from my honourable and learned 
friend I agree entirely. I agree in the necessity of passing this 
important measure; and of passing it without the delay of an hour. 
I must take the liberty, however, of saying, that many of the senti¬ 
ments which fell from my honourable and learned friend were, in my 
judgment, eminently calculated to defeat this measure of emancipa¬ 
tion. I agree with my honourable and learned friend, that it is most 
essential to the success of the Catholic cause, that the question of 
emancipation should be carried by a large and overwhelming majo¬ 
rity. But I confidently appeal to every member of this house, whe¬ 
ther the speech of my honourable and learned friend was not calcu¬ 
lated to defeat that object, and to interfere with the success of the 
cause. I was somewhat surprised, sir, when my honourable friend, 
the member for Louth, came forward with arguments, which he thought 
proper to urge in direct contradiction to his own evidence, under the 
solemn obligation of an oath. I would not, of course, be supposed 
to throw the slightest imputation on the honourable member, nor even 
to insinuate that that additional sanction would be more binding on 
him than his own sense of honour ; but, it certainly did sound strange 
in my ears, to hear my honourable friend put forward arguments, 
completely in the teeth of everything he had recommended to the 
committee of the House of Commons. I shall not enter into the evi¬ 
dence from which such copious extracts have been read by my hon¬ 
ourable friend, who brought forward this subject with so much ability; 
but, I wish to place before the house the argument of the honourable 
member for Louth, and the conclusions he has drawn, so much at 
variance with his own evidence. 

The honourable gentleman’s complaint against the measure is, 
that it does not go far enough, but that it should be extended to 
the disqualification of all holders in fee; but, does my honourable 
friend mean, that we should cany our principle to the length of dis¬ 
franchising a body of men like the yeomanry of England ? Now, 
what is the ground upon which the honourable member supports his 
opinion ? Why, forsooth, because certain vagrants have settled in 
certain commons in Ireland ; who, by acts of rapine and disseisin, 





356 


plunket’s speeches. 


have obtained a title to certain lands. Why, then, if this be so dis¬ 
tressing an event to the honourable member, let him bring in a bill to 
disfranchise them. He admits there is a great existing evil, which 
this measure, as far as it goes, is well adapted to remedy; but, be¬ 
cause a parcel of travelling tinkers have migrated to the bogs of 
Drumskele, in the county of Louth, he turns round upon us and says, 
that, unless we so change our measure, as to render it impossible for 
any rational man to adopt it, he will resist it with all his might. 
Now, if the speech of the honourable member, surprised me, the house 
may judge of my consternation, when I heard my honourable and 
learned friend, the member for Winchelsea, adopt his argument; nay, 
more, misrepresent it, and carry it to a length which the honourable 
author himself never contemplated. Of course I do not mean for 
one moment to assert, that my honourable and learned friend would 
be capable of wilfully misrepresenting anything, either here or else¬ 
where, but so it is. Such is the wonderful power of his talent and 
eloquence, that, whatever argument is favoured with his adoption, re¬ 
ceives a force and extent of which its originator was wholly uncon¬ 
scious ; and when my honourable and learned friend felt himself in 
that cruel and grievous situation which he has so feelingly depicted 
—impelled by a sense of duty to do that which might be detrimental 
to a measure to which I know he is attached; I really do lament 
most heartily, that instead of applying all those powers of ridicule 
in which he is unrivalled, and that faculty of exposure which belongs 
to him, in a degree that I never witnessed in any other man in any 
house, to demolish the argument of the honourable member for Louth, 
he should have exercised his transcendent abilities to embellish and 
support it. But to come to the argument—I think I have some 
ground to complain of my honourable and learned friend. That he 
is an ardent friend to Catholic concession, does not rest upon his asser¬ 
tion or on mine; he has given proofs of it too strong for any man to 
doubt his sincerity. The extent of his services cannot be over-rated; 
but, I have perceived on this occasion, and with great regret, what 
he has never shown on any other. His extreme rapidity of conception 
and wonderful facility of utterance, has, by unremitting exercise, be¬ 
come a weakness, which leads him into statements, which, in tho 
sober reflection of his cooler moments, his own excellent judgment 
would disavow. I appeal to the recollection of this house, whether 
my honourable and learned friend has not pressed into his service, in 
opposition to this measure, which, for aught he knows (as he himself 
declares), may be sound and salutary; for my honourable and learned 
friend set out by stating hi6 entire ignorance of the merits of the 


ELECTIVE FRANCHISE. 


357 


measure, of which, I must do him the justice to say, he gave the most 
convincing demonstration as he went along—I would appeal, I say, 
to all who hear me, whether the effect at least of his address was not 
to awaken prejudices which might defeat the measure, the success of 
which we all have at heart ? 

My honourable and learned friend says that the object of the m«i- 
sure is to put down perjury, and he asks what right we have to in¬ 
terfere in such a question, when every man in the house perjures 
himself? And then, in one of his flights, he takes a range amongst 
the army and clergy; but what has all this to do with the question ? 
And, to come to the real argument, even admitting that the qualifi¬ 
cation for sitting in this house does lead to perjury, and supposing 
the army and church not exempt from the stain, are we in no instance 
to cure the evil when we have it in our power ? If any other mem¬ 
ber had pursued such a line of conduct, would not my honourable and 
learned friend have called it a jump ? Why should he resort to such 
a line of argument ? I cannot suppose he could have been desirous 
to press into his service popular topics for the purpose of exciting 
prejudice. Have I not a right to complain that my honourable and 
learned friend has all through his speech assumed as facts what he 
was bound to prove were facts ? He has condescended to nickname 
this measure, and then calls upon you to reject it. But, what right 
has he to call this a measure of disfranchisement ? Catholic eman¬ 
cipation, he says, would be a great good, and although not imme¬ 
diately felt, would be materially beneficial, and would conciliate Ire¬ 
land ; whereas, this measure would be immediately felt by the people, 
and felt as an injury. The whole scope of his argument is, that in¬ 
stead of producing content in Ireland, this measure will excite a ferment 
amongst the Catholics themselves; but, sir, let me inform my hon¬ 
ourable and learned friend that this measure does not go to disfranchise 
a single human being now alive. If this be so, I would ask, what is 
there in the bill to justify the ferment which my honourable and 
learned friend anticipates amongst the Catholics ; or how can he re¬ 
concile his desire for conciliation with this glowing appeal to their 
prejudices ? He seems to apprehend that the Catholics of Ireland 
will be more alive to constitutional jealousies than to their own in¬ 
terests ; in the heat of argument he has prevailed upon himself to 
believe that their constitutional feelings will be aroused by abstract 
considerations. In his estimation, they must be most powerful and 
acute reasoners, for they will overlook the general benefit to ba con¬ 
ferred, whilst their feelings will be directed to the immediate opera¬ 
tion of a measure which can affect no man living. My honourable 


358 


plunket’s speeches. 


ent differed 


and learned friend seems to suppose, that the Irish parliament 
from all others on points of order; and I should infer that he thinks 
the Irish people differed from the inhabitants of all other countries, 
and entertained opinions repugnant to all the principles which regu¬ 
late human actions. But, says my honourable and learned friend, 

“ I do not know whether this bill is good or bad—I have kindly 
feelings towards it—I am not opposed to it.” But, to my mind, he pre¬ 
sented as ugly an appearance as I ever witnessed; he exhibited very 
little of that affection and endearment which distinguish a zealous 
friend from an adversary. One thing he could not at all endure : he 
could not bear the idea of joining this measure with any other; ho 
was opposed to it, because it had the appearance of a bribe. But, 
the time presses—a large majority even will not carry the measure— 
nothing short of unanimity will accomplish the object—still he could 
not consent, such was his sense of duty, to the proposed measure. 
This really appears to me standing a little too much on the knight- 
errantry of logic. He will not consent to unite a measure which may 
be good, for aught he knows, to another measure, which, he contends, if 
accomplished, must be beneficial to the empire. This appears to me 
the very romance of delicacy, and if my honourable and learned friend, 
in addition to his other numerous avocations, should devote his talents 
to the writing a novel, he might, no doubt, found a very interesting 
tale on his delicate embarrassment, and introduce some sentiments, 
which, although extremely suitable there, were ill adapted to the 
sober discussions of an assembly like the House of Commons. 

Now, I will frankly state my opinion of this measure; and, in 
doing so, I am not afraid of leaving my character for frankness in 
the hands of the house. My decided opinion is, that this measure is 
in the abstract good; but even if I thought it, to a certain extent 
injurious, not unjust, but faulty in some respects ; or if I thought it 
calculated to accomplish a greater good, I would adopt and support 
it, for the purpose of obtaining the higher benefit. That is my creed: 
—1 openly avow it, and there is notan honest man in the house who 
will condemn it. My honourable and learned friend complains, that 
we have joined this measure to the emancipation of the Catholics, 
which has no natural connexion with it; and he states it as a griev¬ 
ance, that it should be placed close by the side of the larger measure, 
and that the motions of the one must wait upon the progress of the ' 
other. But have they, in fact, no connexion ? Now, we propose to 
admit the Catholics to the participation of the constitution; and how 
are we met ? “ What, (say our opponents) will you emancipate this 

immense Catholic population, and allow the mob to rush in and take 






ELECTIVE FRANCHISE. 


359 




possession of those seats ?” And am I to be told that a measure 
which takes away this power from the hands of the mob has no na- 
tnral connexion with the great question of Catholic emancipation ? 
But, take the other view of the question. Suppose the question should 
not be carried, I know of no other way in which the Catholics can 
advance their cause, than through the agency of the 40s. freeholders; 
so that, in fact, in every way in which the measure can be contem¬ 
plated, it is strictly and inseparably connected with the question for 
removing the Catholic disabilities. My honourable and learned friend 
complained bitterly of the cruel situation in which he was placed; but 
I never saw a man in such circumstances who appeared more happy, 
or who drew upon his own rich resources in higher perfection. I 
never knew him disdain more completely the consideration before him, 
and throw himself upon the energies of his own misd, and the extra¬ 
ordinary powers of his fancy and eloquence, than upon this rack of 
torture on which he placed himself, complaining of us for having 
taken him by surprise, by the unexpected introduction of a measure 
which, for the last three months, every body well knew was intended 
to be submitted to the house. But now let us come to the measure 
itself; and I would beg of gentlemen, whatever their opinions may 
be, to examine it in its own abstract shape. But, before I enter 
upon this part of the subject, 1 wish to make one observation. Should 
my right honourable friend near me (Mr. Peel) think this measure 
not bad in itself, but likely to produce good, yet holding his particu¬ 
lar opinions on Catholic emancipation, I should not blame him if he 
resisted this measure, on the ground that his opposition would defeat 
the more extensive question, which to his mind appears fraught with 
evil; at the same time, I must say, and I speak it not in the nig¬ 
gardly spirit which is sometimes displayed of admitting sincerity on 
the ground of courtesy; I shall not use that uncourteous courtesy 
towards my right honourable friend ; but in the honest sincerity of 
my heart I say, that no man would be less disposed than my right 
honourable friend to defeat a measure which is good in itself, on ac¬ 
count of its connexion with any other measure to which he might be 
opposed. We complain of the act of 1793, which has been so truly 
described by the honourable member for Louth, as having begun at 
the wrong end, by letting in the rabble and shutting out the higher 
classes; the consequence of which has been, that the country gentle¬ 
men of Ireland let out their land, and subdivided it into small free¬ 
holds. This was the system which led to all the unfortunate conse¬ 
quences. If one of those poor wretches wa3 prosecuted for perjury, 
his landlord went bail for him, and he was never heard of afterwards. 




860 


plunket’s speeches. 


Was not this in itself an evil of a serious nature ? The next pro¬ 
ceeding is this; and let the house observe, all these facts are empha¬ 
tically detailed in evidence, although my honourable and learned friend 
complains of want of information. The landlord gives this wretched 
being a freehold, which may not be worth forty pence, comprising, 
perhaps, an acre of land and a miserable hovel, the rent of which he 
could never pay without the addition of his own labour; but if he 
can earn 405. a year on his land, he then swears he is a 405. free¬ 
holder ; but should he refuse, the landlord tells him, “ you must give 
up your land; I’ll not keep an idle, lazy, lubberly fellow, who will 
not swear he is worth 405. a year.” Is the house, then, to be told 
that they are not to provide a remedy for this flagitious evil, because 
the clergy or the army, or even members of parliament, do not always 
adhere to the truth ?—topics which form good subjects for amuse¬ 
ment when my honourable and learned friend wishes to indulge his 
fancy, but which are very feeble arguments against remedying this 
crying evil. I could not help thinking that my honourable and learned 
friend displayed somewhat of the alacrity of an advocate, in selecting 
from the wide range of his own imagination all those popular topics 
that could be plied against the cause. The present system leads to 
the most painful consequences. At an election, the landlord says to 
his agent, “ Send those 500 men to the market.” Generally speak¬ 
ing, they neither know nor care for whom they vote; but, should his 
religious feelings be aroused, should the priest be called into action, 
then arises a contest between the priest and the landlord, neither of 
them seeking to elevate the poor peasant, but to get possession of 
him. The consequence of which is, to insult the landlord and degrade 
the priest. But after the heat of the contest has subsided, the poor 
wretch retires from the religious excitement, and has to settle with 
his landlord, he has to make up his rent, he is unable to do it, and is 
dismissed; and the result is, that the poor man is ruined by yielding 
to his religious feelings, and resisting the tyranny of his landlord. 
Thus the peasant is habituated to a perpetual contest with his land¬ 
lord, in which the landlord always succeeds. 

Are these things disputed in the evidence ? Do we want witnesses 
to prove that perjury has been committed ? Why, it was distinctly 
proved before the committee of this house—a committee composed of 
persons of all opinions, who were inclined to probe the subject to th/ 
bottom. I have no recollection of any measure in support of which 
such satisfactory evidence was adduced before a committee. Do we, 
by the measure we propose, affect the independence of elections ? 
No such thing. On the contrary, we secure the purity of election. 


ELECTIVE FRANCHISE. 


361 


I hold in my hand an account of the number of persons registered 
for eight years in thirty-two counties, from which returns were made, 
and what was the proportion ? In the year before the election, the 
proportion was of the 40s. freeholders, 18 to 1 of the 20 1. and 501. 
freeholders. The consequence of all this was, that the independent 
freeholders were overlaid, and the principle of election was wholly 
destroyed. The honourable member for Corfe Castle (Mr. Bankes) 
was so fired with constitutional zeal, which the courtesy of the house 
compels me to admit is great, but one particle beyond which I am 
not prepared to go, has declared, that he would rather expire on the 
floor of this house, than sacrifice one portion of his fine Runnymede 
feelings. I do admire most exceedingly the fine spirit of the ancient 
barons, when it bursts out through the honourable member for Corfe 
Castle. But I hope it will be some consolation to him to learn, that 
this measure is not intended to affect England. There may be modes 
of managing votes in some of the towns in England ; but with Eng¬ 
lish towns I profess myself wholly unacquainted. At present, I ad¬ 
dress myself to the honourable member for Corfe Castle, and 1 trust 
his feelings will be appeased by the circumstances to which I have 
adverted. We propose no violent change ; the measure is to be slow 
and gradual in its operation ; the result of it will be the raising up 
a class of sturdy, independent yeomanry in Ireland, who, in the ful¬ 
ness of time, will be fitted for the same rights which are enjoyed, and 
wisely exercised, by the people of this country. This is the principle 
of the measure ; it disfranchises no man ; it will produce no violent 
effect on the country ; and it is entitled to support, because it appears 
calculated, from the evidence which has been received, to give gene¬ 
ral satisfaction. 

Sir, with respect to one part of the evidence, my honourable 
and learned friend has been much mistaken, I mean the evidence 
of Mr. O’Connell. I have read that evidence lately; and the 
meaning of it appears obviously to me to advise the committee not 
to meddle with the subject; but this I understood to apply to the 
operation of the measure by itself without any other—which no man 
would advise, I do not wish to attach to the character of Mr. 
O’Connell more value than I think properly belongs to it. I must 
do him the justice to say that he enjoys a large portion of the confi¬ 
dence of the people of Ireland. I had very little intercourse with that 
gentleman until after the recent discussions in this house; but, from 
what I have seen of him, I cannot hesitate to declare, in the face of 
parliament, that I do not believe there is any man less disposed than 
Mr. O’Connell to abuse the extensive confidence he enjoys amongst 




3G2 


plunket’s speeches. 


his countrymen, or more desirous to employ it for the benefit of his 
country. I myself have been lately in Ireland, and have had much 
intercourse with people of various opinions as to the policy of the 
measure. They appeared to me to approve of it. It has also the 
support of my right honourable friend (Sir J. Newport). There are 
many other Irish members sitting round my honourable and learned 
friend, who can inform him as to the operation of the measure; tor 
although I cannot sympathise with him, or suppose him in any un¬ 
pleasant predicament, arising from a want of acquaintance with the 
great general principles of this or any other important question, yet, 
on the details of the measure, I must give him credit for the most ab¬ 
solute ignorance. However, he is surrounded by those who can best 
inform him; and they, I believe, with one or two exceptions, are 
persuaded the measure will give general satisfaction. Let him con¬ 
sult them, and still more his own excellent judgment, flinging aside, 
for the present, the aid of his rhetoric, and he cannot fail to arrive 
at a sound conclusion. 

Sir, I need not attempt to describe the solicitude I avow myself 
to feel for the success of this bill. I hail its accomplishment, 
not alone as it advances the hopes of the Roman Catholic, but I sin¬ 
cerely hail it with reference to the satisfaction it is calculated to impart 
to the Protestants of Ireland. I mean, that it is calculated not only 
to conciliate that portion of the Protestants of Ireland who are friendly 
to the repeal of Catholic disabilities, but even those who still continue 
adverse to its accomplishment. And here it is impossible that I 
should not express the heartfelt gratification that I, in common with 
all those who look forward to the completion of the great measure of 
Catholic relief, have felt at the great advance that question has re¬ 
ceived, by the accession of such support as has been afforded to us by the 
vote of my honourable friend the member for the county of Armagh. If 
any one thing could excuse a feeling of envy or jealousy in my mind it 
would be, I confess, towards him; enjoying, as he does, the proud 
consciousness arising from his generous, manly, and honest declara¬ 
tion. Returning to this measure, my honourable and learned friend 
has asked, even though it should be coupled with the accomplishment 
of Catholic relief, who is the bold man that would venture to say 
that this measure will afford relief to Ireland ? I meet the interroga¬ 
tory of my honourable and learned friend; and, though I do not pro¬ 
fess myself as the votary of that extreme political courage, which I 
have often found to be more an indication of rashness than firmness, 
yet, with my conviction of the propriety of the measure—with my 
knowledge of the general impressions that exist in Ireland as to its 







elective franchise. 303 

necessity—I am that bold man. I do in my conscience believe, that, 
coupled with the substantial measure of relief, it will not only con¬ 
ciliate the Catholics, but give increased security to the Protestants of 
Ireland. And here I have to complain of my honourable and learned 
friend, that in the whole of his excursive speech, he has altogether 
thrown out of his view what that security demanded. But, though 
he disregarded it, it is a consideration that I confess has never been 
out of my calculation. To obtain the great measure of relief to the 
Roman Catholics of Ireland has been the object of my utmost anxiety. 
1 have been always solicitous for that great accomplishment—now s 
more than ever. I feel that a day should not be lost^before the house 
carries this vote into effect. But, strongly as I feel its necessity, I 
am still persuaded, that if it were carried into effect, leaving an ex¬ 
isting distrust in the minds of the Protestants of Ireland, it would be 
a curse instead of a blessing. Let it be recollected, that in the pro¬ 
gress of this great cause, every foot of it has been reclaimed ground. 
It has made its way gradually—the triumph of enlightened views and 
irresistible argument. And therefore it is that, since first it was in¬ 
troduced to the consideration of the legislature, there never was a 
moment when the result of such continued exertions was more likely 
to be frustrated—when the cup was more likely to be dashed from 
the lip on the brink of enjoyment—than at the moment I address 
you, by any indiscretion on the part of 'any honourable member. ^1 
beg my honourable and learned friend to believe, that I think him in¬ 
capable of any such intention. I never can forget his super-eminent 
services to the great cause. No man who feels for the prosperity of 
Ireland and the security of the empire, can forget the important be¬ 
nefits which, in the exercise of his powerful talents, my honourable 
and learned friend has given to those great objects. But, without 
presuming to pronounce on the reasons, it was impossible not to see 
with regret, that even he is labouring this night under an effort which 
was eminently calculated, though not intended, to defeat the great 
object for which he had heretofore so powerfully struggled, and by 
so doing to dash from Ireland the blessing, the very moment that it 
anticipated its fulfilment. There are many other topics connected 
with this great question which press themselves on my consideration, 
but I feel that neither my own strength, nor my feelings of respect to 
the attention with which I have been honoured, will permit me to 
intrude further on your patience. I leave, therefore, the question to 
the enlightened judgment of the house. 

The Bill was read a second time by a majority of 48, and proceeded pari passct 
with the other wings. Un the 2nd of May, the house resolved on the motion of 




304 


plunket’s speeches. 


Lord Francis Levison Gower, that it was expedient to pension the Irish Cathode 
clergy. All English statesmen have had a conviction, since the Catholics first 
began to grow into a political power, that the pension would be the real “goldcu 
link” between the countries. We find even Peel in this debate almost advocat¬ 
ing its adoption—urging only the necessity of obtaining some church patronage 
to the crown. “ It was too hard if the King were to have no voice in the appoint¬ 
ment of a bishop with a salary of £1000 a year.” The scale of pension proposed 
was, £1500 to an archbishop ; £1000 to a bishop ; £300 to a dean or vicar ; 
from £200 to £120 to a parish priest; and £60 to a curate. Plunket warmly 
supported it with a few pithy sentences—ending the debate by declaring, that 
such a measure would be “ a buttress to the Established church.” On the 11th 
the Belief Bill was read a third time and went to the Lords—where, as we have 
already stated, it was rejected on the second reading. 


CATHOLIC RELIEF. 

June 10, 1828. 

In May, 1828, Sir F. Burdett, after three days’ debate, carried a motion fur 
Emancipation in the House of Commons by a majority of 12. Immediately 
afterwards a conference with the House of Lords was agreed to, and on the 
motion of the Duke of Wellington, lords were appointed to confer. On the 9th 
of June, the Marquis of Lansdowne introduced a motion for legislation on the 
basis of the Commons’ resolutions, and Plunket, who had been called to the 
upper house in the preceding year, made his first appearance in the House of 
Lords in support of the motion. He was preceded in the debate by Lord 
Manners, whom he had so often bewildered in the mazes of his marvellous logic 
in the Irish Court of Chancery, and whose unflagging hatred to the Catholic 
claims was just beginning to relax under the weight of that tremendous popular 
pressure, which caused Wellington and Peel to give way. Lord Lansdowne’s 
motion was rejected, but in the next month, O’Connell was returned to parlia¬ 
ment fur Clare, and the positions ceased to be tenable. 

1 am anxious to take the first opportunity that fairly occurs, of re¬ 
peating my unalterable conviction upon this question. The noble and 
learned lord behind me (Manners), last night stated the result of his 
observations, after a residence of twenty years in Ireland, and I am 
satisfied that he uttered, with perfect truth and candour, the conclu¬ 
sion at which his mind had arrived. I hope that your lordships will 
permit me, after forty years spent in that country in active life, pub¬ 
lic and private, official and unofficial, in parliament and out of par¬ 
liament, with the fullest opportunities of observing the deportment 
of all classes, to state my unalterable conviction, that unless this 


CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL. 


365 


agitating question be disposed of by some conciliatory adjustment, 
there is no hope of prosperity, tranquillity, or even safety for Ireland. 
If any person has arrived at this decision, that under no circum¬ 
stances, at no time, and accompanied by no conditions, he can and 
ought to do anything for the Roman Catholics—that person is en¬ 
titled to vote against the proposition to-night. Unless he has arrived 
at that decision, I do not see how it is possible to refuse his support 
to the motion of the noble marquis. 

I have listened with the most profound attention to the able, tem¬ 
perate, and dignified statement of my noble and learned friend who 
has just taken his seat. Part of it I heard with the most gratified 
feelings ; because I did think, and I still hope I am not mistaken in 
so thinking, I saw in the resistance he felt it necessary to make to 
the proposition, some distant gleam of comfort, some secret hope, 
some latent opinion in his mind, that there were circumstances and 
securities, if time were given to look after them, and if the search 
were made at the proper season, which might render the adoption of 
some measure in favour of the Catholics admissible. On the other 
hand, I felt extreme regret and disappointment at other parts of his 
speech, because, if I could agree with him in believing that we can 
take no step for the admission of Roman Catholics into parliament, 
and into office, without the destruction of the Protestant establish¬ 
ment in Ireland, I, who have supported these claims almost from the 
first moment I could think, would abandon my ancient and con¬ 
tinued opinions, would change my side and become as determined an 
opponent to concession, as 1 have been its most anxious advocate. 

I look on the Protestant establishment of Ireland as a fundamental 
principle of our imperial constitution. I take it to have been unal¬ 
terably settled at the Union, and that to talk of changing the Pro¬ 
testant religion of Ireland without shaking the Protestant establish¬ 
ment of the empire is idle. I speak no new language, now that for 
the first time I have had an opportunity of delivering my sentiments 
’> the presence of the right reverend bench ; I utter but the opinions 
i have entertained and expressed in the other House of Parliament. 
I think a religious establishment essential to our well-being, and that 
without a dignified establishment in times like these, religion itself 
would be degraded. I am, therefore, persuaded, not only that the 
establishment is necessary, but that the rank, affluence, and dignity 

the hierarchy are important to our best interests. I think further, 
Uiat its power and influence are and ought to be so great, that unless 
th.it hierarchy be connected with the state, it may be too powerful 
tor the state ; and heuoe the necessity of maintaining that connec- 


■lunket’s speeches. 


3Q6 

tion for the benefit of the state. On these grounds, and not for any 
fanciful and theoretical reasons, assigned by some writers upon this 
subject, I never for a moment would consent to anything which 
should endanger the Protestant establishment. 

I further feel that the Protestant establishment of Ireland is the 
very cement of the Union ; I find it interwoven with all the essential 
relations and institutions of the two kingdoms; and I have no hesita¬ 
tion in admitting that if it were destroyed, the very foundations of 
public security would be shaken, the connection between Eugland and 
Ireland dissolved, and the annihilation of private property must fol¬ 
low the ruin of the property of the church. 

I should be happy to suppose that I had misunderstood my noble 
and learned friend, in the interpretation I put upon the latter partot 
his argument.; and I repeat that if I thought with him, that the con¬ 
sequences of admitting the claim of the Roman Catholics would be 
such as he anticipated, I would now and for ever resist them. I am 
most anxious to relieve my own mind, and to state the grounds on 
which I can do so satisfactorily, from this terrible alternative; and I 
trust your lordships will excuse me, if I go a little back, aud briefly 
call your attention to that period of our history so much adverted 
to by my noble and learned friend—I mean the period of the Revo¬ 
lution. 

The general circumstances under which that glorious event occurred 
are so well known, that it is unnecessary for me to do more than 
shortly advert to them. At that date, this Protestant country took 
up arms in support of its civil and religious liberties, against the 
bigotted and despotic monarch who had endangered both. She took 
up arms, as she had a right to do, for that purpose, and she succeeded; 
but let me remind your lordships, that that success would probably 
have been more than problematical, if the energies and patriotism of 
the people of this country had not been sanctioned and stimulated by 
the strongest motives of religious duty. The union of patriotism aij. 
religion produced that success. What was then the situation of Ire¬ 
land, of Popish Ireland—of the unfortunate natives of that country ? 
I do not advert to this point for the sake of reviving ungrateful 
recollections, but because it is necessary to my argument. When 
we come to sit in judgment upon the conduct of the natives of Ire¬ 
land, we should do it not with feelings of resentment against them, 
but of shame, remorse, and self-accusation against ourselves. These 
are the assessors whom we ought to call in, to aid us in arriving at a 
decision, and in passing a just sentence of atonement. 

_ Ireland was once in possession of an undefiled religion; free from 


CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL. 


367 


Popery and Papal usurpation. You forced upon her pure Christianity 
your own corruptions and superstitions, and you taught her to con¬ 
sider herself yours, not merely by right of conquest, but by Papal right. 
Without reference to her habits or opinions, you compelled her to 
receive your corrupted religion. As knowledge advanced, we became 
prepared for a change; and here the Reformation was effected with 
the full consent and approbation of the people. They understood and 
appreciated the blessing of the reformed religion; but the other un¬ 
fortunate portion of the empire had been left in a state of ignorance 
and barbarism, and in this condition they naturally turned and ad¬ 
hered to the corruptions and superstitions which, in the first instance, 
you had forced upon her. Then you forced the Reformation upon 
her, without any regard to the habits and opinions of the people. 
When, therefore, she some time afterwards found a Popish monarch 
on the throne of England, she refused to take up arms against him, 
because he professed the same religion. Had the Irish possessed an 
enlightened philosophy, they might, perhaps, have known that it was 
better to sacrifice their religion to their patriotism, than their patriot¬ 
ism to their religion; but, in such times, that was too much to ex¬ 
pect from human nature, and accordingly, not only did they not take 
up arms against a Popish king, but they took up arms in his behalf. 
They were subdued ; and what were the duties, at that period, de¬ 
volving upon the English government? The great men of that day had 
a most difficult task to accomplish. It was impossible that they should 
treat the Roman Catholics of Ireland as good subjects; they had been, 
not as against the king, but as against the English government, in a 
state of armed resistance, and they could not safely be admitted into 
parliament or into office. It therefore became requisite by an act, 
strictly speakiug, of injustice, but injustice compelled by rigid ne¬ 
cessity, to exclude them from parliament and from office. But let 
me remind your lordships, and particularly the learned earl (Eldon), 
who is taking notes of what I say, of what was the state of the law, 
.as it existed at that time. At the Revolution the Irish Catholics 
were in undoubted possession of the privileges of sitting in both houses 
of parliament. I shall presently have occasion to observe upon the 
application of these two laws to the English ; but I am now speaking 
only of the Irish. The 5 th of Elizabeth, by which, for the first time, 
the path of supremacy was made necessary for admission into the 
House of Commons, never existed in Ireland. From the Reformation 
down to the 2nd William andjMary, a period of 130 years, the Irish 
enjoyed the undisputed privilege, not merely in point of law, but prac- 
‘ieally, of sittiqg in parliament,; they were also, though not, perhaps 


flunket’s speeches. 


368 




to the same degree, admitted into office. The first of Elizabeth was 
adopted by the 2nd Elizabeth in Ireland, and it required the oath of 
supremacy to be taken on accepting office; yet among the Roman 
Catholics it was not for a long time considered a barrier to their ad¬ 
mission. It has been truly stated by my noble and learned friend, 
that many Roman Catholics took the oath of supremacy, and I may 
add, they did so, both in this country and in Treland; for the first 
twelve years of the reign of Elizabeth, they took it without difficulty 
in this country, and it was not until after the attempts of the Popish 
priests, sent over from the Continent to deprive Elizabeth of her throne 
and life, that any difficulty of the kind arose. The act of the 2nd of 
William and Mary was the result of stern necessity superseding the 
ordinary dictates of justice, and even the faith of treaties. But what 
was the course it became necessary then to pursue ? 

Those enlightened persons, those lovers of freedom, then at the 
head of affairs, saw their difficulty and became satisfied of the truth 
of this proposition, that it was utterly inconsistent to shut any class 
of individuals out of parliament and office—to deprive them of fran¬ 
chise and of the privileges of the constitution, and yet to leave them 
in possession of wealth and power. The two principles were utterly 
inconsistent; if you separate wealth and knowledge from the state, 
wealth and knowledge must overturn the state. Therefore those 
profound statesmen saw in all its bearings the proposition I am now 
submitting to the house; and what was the course they pursued ? 

I am not stating it for the purpose of casting any imputation upon 
them; they were in a situation of great embarrassment, and I have 
not met with any suggestion in any w'riter as to the mode in which 
they ought to have proceeded. Treat them as good subjects they 
could not; admit them to parliament and offices in the state they 
could not; and then began that system which was pursued for seventy 
years—the system of keeping the Irish Roman Catholics in the lowest 
extremity of poverty and ignorance. It was pursued to that limit, 
where the art of grinding down a people must end; and then what 
took place ? The good sense and good feeling of this country recoiled 
with pain and disgust from the termination of their own system of 
government. They were shocked to see one of the fairest portions 
<>f the empire reduced to so destitute a condition. 

Let the house recollect, that the whole period from the Revolution 
was one continued scene of severe but necessary infliction ; and let 
the house recollect also the conduct of« the Irish under it. While 
Scotland, and even England, had been subjected to more than one 
insurrection in favour of the exiled family, Ireland remained resigned 


CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL. 


369 


and patient, and never raised an arm or a voice in its behalf. The 
people of England were softened and subdued by the resignation and 
forbearance of the people of Ireland, and became satisfied that some¬ 
thing ought to be done for them. A new system then began; and 
for the last fifty years, you have been retracing the steps taken for 
the 70 or 80 years preceding, and endeavouring to replace the Irish 
in the situation which they originally occupied. Support, encourage¬ 
ment, privileges—constitutional privileges—to a great extent were 
given to them, and accordingly we now no longer find them in the 
abject and ignorant wretchedness to which we formerly reduced them. 
Your own acts of justice and policy have raised them to the situation 
of a great, powerful, and reflecting people. The English government 
and the Irish parliament made some mistakes in endeavouring to alter 
their course. Many of the provisions of the act of 1793 were most 
wise and salutary ; but others were introduced of a decidedly objec¬ 
tionable tendency. By that act, all disabilities, all incapacities, either 
with respect to landed property, admission to office, or to other privi¬ 
leges of the state, were absolutely repealed, with certain exceptions, 
extending to a considerable number of offices, and above all, to seats 
in parliament—that highest privilege in civil life. You gave to Ro¬ 
man Catholics the right of returning members to sit in parliament, 
but you withheld from the Catholic aristocracy the right of filling 
those seats themselves; that is to say, you created a Roman Catholic 
constituency for Protestant representatives. It was impossible that 
this discordant state of things could arrive at any consistent termi¬ 
nation, and by that error of the act of 1793 you laid the founda¬ 
tion of further evils. Under this new system of government, it was 
almost miraculous how Ireland continued to revive and to recover 
from her state of moral and physical degradation ; so much so, that 
at length England became apprehensive of the growing power of Ire¬ 
land, and in 1800 the Union was proposed, and took place. It was 
effected avowedly on this principle, that by uniting the two countries 
under one religion, security might be given to the two establishments; 
and that by uniting them under one constitution, happiness and free¬ 
dom might be ensured to both. 

Beware, my lords, how you paralyse that Union; consider how 
impossible it is effectually to preserve that Union by consolidating the 
two establishments, and yet at the same time not to render it perfect 
by giving equal rights to the people of both countries. That these 
were the opinions of the illustrious statesmen under whose auspices 
the Union was commenced and concluded, will not now be disputed, 
i do not mean to assert, that the distinguished individual then at the 


370 


PLUNKET tJ SPEECHES. 


head of the government held out expectations to the Roman Catho* 
lies, that they would be admitted to political power; but at that 
period hopes were encouraged that the Union would be the means 
of facilitating the acquisition of privileges which they could otherwise 
never have a chance of enjoying. When the act of Union was car¬ 
ried I had a seat in the Irish parliament; I was then a young man, 
and I felt it my duty to oppose it; I am now an old man, but un¬ 
der the same circumstances, were they again to occur, I should adopt 
the same course. As, however, the Union was carried, we ought to 
do our utmost to render it perfect and permanent. I thought in the 
year 1800, that it was a measure of party; that it would not be 
acted upon fairly, and that the inferior country would be obliged to 
suffer without redress. I have been most happily disappointed. I 
know of no instance in which the interests of Ireland have been 
brought under the consideration of the Imperial Parliament, in which 
those interests have not been attended to with justice, with favour,, 
and almost with partiality. 

Then, I may naturally be asked, if both countries have been so 
prosperous under the Union—if many privileges have been given to 
Ireland by it—if the markets of this country have been thus opened 
to her produce, why is she not satisfied, and why, by making these 
claims, does she attempt to disturb the harmony of the empire ? I 
answer that the Irish Catholics, by making these claims are evincing 
their gratitude for benefits conferred upon them, and that they are 
the necessary consequence of the situation in which they are placed*. 
If they aspire after the honours of the state, in order that they may 
£erve their common country with advantage, it is not only consistent 
with the policy but with the dictates of human nature. If, as you 
say, you have given the protection of the law to the Catholic—if you 
have admitted him into the possession of wealth and power, and yet 
have excluded him from office on account of his religion, which you 
say necessarily makes him a subject not worthy of confidence, not 
worthy of a seat in parliament—is he to feel himself satisfied, or 
rather, does he not show his gratitude by asking for more ? I should 
think him most base and unworthy to be free, if he were not to ask 
Tor more if he were sincere; but I should not believe in his sincerity, 
and should think him a base and deceitful hypocrite, I should think 
him a disgrace to the country, if he were not to ask for all the pri¬ 
vileges erf the rest of his countrymen. 

I have been told, and it has been more than once mentioned in 
the course of this debate, that there is a difference between civil 
rights and political power. There is, in my opinion, no position 



CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL. 


371 


more at. variance with the fundamental principles of the constitution. 
Political power is the guardian of civil rights. The civil rights of 
subjects are not founded on any written law, but arose out of the es¬ 
sence of the constitution. Where is the law on which the rights of 
Protestants to seats in parliament are founded ? There may be, and 
there are, laws for regulating the right; but the right itself rests on 
the common principles of the constitution. That right, like others, 
may be modified according to circumstances ; but still, enjoyment is 
the general rule, exclusion is only the exception ; and those who de¬ 
fend the exclusion are bound to prove its justice by making out its 
expediency. Our constitution is anything but an establichment of 
castes. The whole of it rests and is supported on the free admission 
of all the people to its benefits. The Throne, the Commons, and the 
House of Lords, all rest on this fundamental principle of our consti¬ 
tution, and by this it has been preserved from the fate of other 
countries. We have? heard of public councils in other countries, 
which have been changed into oligarchies by trenching too much 
on the executive, or into courts of justice by permitting, the executive 
to intrude too far upon their privilege; but the grand principle of 
our constitution is, that the several orders fall back upon the people, 
mid art, I may say renewed by them. What is the construction of 
your lordships’ house ? Is it not gradually renewed and strength¬ 
ened by an infusion from the body of the people —of those who are 
conspicuous for their merits, for having served the country, or the 
power of serving it by their wealth ? The basis they rest upon is 
that of public opinion ; and their improvement is founded on popular 
stamina. The lowest man in the state may, by his own merits and 
the exercise of his prerogative on the part of the sovereign, become 
a member of this house. What a proportion of your lordships have 
been elevated to the rank of the peerage in the late reign 1 And 
does it become those who have been thus taken from the people to 
talk of castes ? With what face could I think of using the privilege 
which has been conferred upon me by putting my back to the d or 
to shoulder out the Duke of Norfolk ? Shame on the ingenuity which 
could so construe the four corners of the great charter, as to turn it 
to the exclusion of the descendants of those freemen by whose wis¬ 
dom and valour it was obtained! The position against which I con¬ 
tend, is that most erroneous one—that one set of men in a free state 
should have political power, whilst others should be excluded. This 
\s a state of things so intolerable, that it is not in human nature to 
bear it. The subjects of the most absolute despot may, under a be¬ 
neficent ruler, be happy ‘ t but it is impossible that men living under 


372 


plunket’s speeches. 


a free government can feel themselves otherwise than in a state of 
degradation, when they find they are debarred the exercise of their 
privileges as freemen, because they are said to believe in a religion 
which is superstitious and idolatrous. In such a state every comfort 
and enjoyment they may have will be smothered with indignation at 
the privations to which they are exposed, and the grounds on which 
their exclusion is defended. Can your lordships then be surprised 
that you are called upon, year after year, by the Homan Catholics, 
for the removal of the disabilities under which they labour ? I have 
at all times endeavoured to moderate the zeal of my Roman Catholic 
countrymen, by recommending them to make their approaches with 
temperance to the hostile opinions, and even the unjust prejudices, of 
those who are opposed to them in this country; but I should greatly 
abuse any influence which I may possess amongst them, if T were to 
advise them to cease their application altogether. The best advice I 
can give is, that they should never cease to pursue the assertion of 
their claims, until they obtain a full recognition of their rights. 
If there is any effect of their exclusion which I should view 
with the greatest alarm, it would be, that their voices shall be no 
longer heard in support of their just claims. That, indeed, would 
be a danger worse, not only thau any which result from their exclu¬ 
sion, but than any which could well be imagined from their admission. 
What, I would ask, is the state of Irish feeling now on this subject ? 
It is well known that in the pursuit of this one object of emancipa¬ 
tion, an intensity of feeling pervades the whole of the Catholic popu¬ 
lation of Ireland, no matter what their rank, condition, or state in 
society. They all join in this pursuit with a degree of unanimity 
which has no parallel. > Laity and clergy are alike associated in fol¬ 
lowing the same object. Over a body thus united, a few individuals 
have acquired an influence, by which they have the power to excite 
them to almost any object they may think proper. 1 would ask your 
lordships whether that is a state of society which ought to continue in 
Ireland ? Are we to hold our laws, our liberties, our safety, at the 
discretion of those individuals ? Is it a state in which so important 
a part of the empire should be allowed to remain? Your lordships 
may complain, that a few persons should possess this power over so 
large a portion of the people. Why, it is not unreasonable to ask, 
should a few lawyers, who have only their zeal and their talents, 
■possess this extraordinary influence ? Your lordships will find, in 
answering this inquiry, that you yourselves are the cause. The peo¬ 
ple are united, because they are aggrieved. They associate and send 
forth their complaints, because they consider themselves injured; and 




CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL. 


373 


your lordships may as well endeavour to avert the current of the blood 
in the human body, as to prevent those complaints, as long as you 
suffer the grievances out of which they spring to exist. As long as 
there are wrongs to be redressed, there will be public assemblies of 
the people to seek that redress; and, in those public assemblies there 
will be leaders, vying with each other in the race for vulgar popula¬ 
rity. If one sees that he is outstripped by another, he will endeavour 
to do something to render himself more agreeable to the passions, 
which, for that purpose, he will be disposed to excite. Do your lord- 
ships object to this state of things ? Their demagogues are the spawn 
of your own wrong. You yourselves have created it, and, instead of 
looking on persons thus engaged as objects of justice, you should ra¬ 
ther consider them as victims to injuries of long standing. 

The question then, to be considered is, what are we to do in this 
case ? Are we to stand still, or go backwards, or go forwards ? To 
stand still is impossible. We must then either go forward, or go back¬ 
ward. “ Go backward,” said the noble lord, “ Go backward ! re¬ 
enact the penal laws, and outlaw a large portion of the people.” Ex¬ 
cellent tyranny, if it were possible. Make war on your own resources, 
and tarnish the honour of the country, by weakening it in such a 
cause. War, my lords, and for what ? War, which, when you had 
carried to a certain extent, you would have to begin again. War, 
which would leave you a guilty spectacle to scoffing and exulting 
Europe. Do your lordships suppose that what is passing in Ireland, 
is an object of indifference to the continent of Europe ? Do you sup¬ 
pose that our excellent constitution, and the unexampled prosperity 
of our career, has made us the love and not the envy of the world ? 
There may be some foreign statesman who, taking up his glass, and 
viewing the dark spot in the western horizon pregnant with the ma¬ 
terials of the coming storm, thinks not that it will break on him but 
for him ; but I would answer for it with my life, if there should be 
an invasion of Ireland, that the Irish people will be found true to the 
king and the constitution. But, why so ? Is it by virtue of the oath 
of supremacy, or the oath against transubstantiation ? They may in¬ 
voke all the saints in the calendar without giving you much benefit 
by it; but you will be entitled to their support, by reminding them 
of the events of the last fifty years, during which, in measures of their 
improvement, you have endeavoured to counteract the blighting ef¬ 
fects of the penalties and persecutions of the preceding eighty. You 
will be entitled to it, by the hope of freedom which they see yet held 
out, and the prospect that their difficulties will, at no distant day, be 
wholly removed by your liberality. 





374 


plunket’s speeches. 


I am most anxious not tc introduce any topic which has not a tenr 
dency to conciliation, but I cannot help remarking on the inconsis¬ 
tency of the arguments of divided allegiance, and that which is ad¬ 
mitted on all hands, namely, that the Roman Catholics are good sub¬ 
jects. This admission is made without your lordships’ house; but 
then it is notorious that out of this house a strong feeling is excited 
against the assumed disposition of the same individuals, by the recital 
of the persecutions and fires of Smithfield. I do not mean to state 
that any of your lordships would be disposed to avail yourselves ot 
the prejudices arising on this ground ; but it cannot be overlooked, 
that while many of you oppose the Catholics on one ground, the only 
tie they have on the public voice in their support arises from another. 
I cannot pass over in this place, the use which has been made of the 
name of Mr. Pitt, and the manner in which the authority of his alleged 
opinions have been dealt with. This statesman, whose acts are well 
known—whose speeches and opinions are recorded and matter of 
history—is now held up by some of his admirers in support of a 
cause which he never advocated. The principles of that right hon¬ 
ourable gentleman on this question were, I should have imagined, well 
known, they caused his retirement from the councils of a sovereign 
who loved him, at a time, too, when the country was engaged in war, 
in the issue of which his fame was committed. Yet, with all this, 
his name has been made the watchword of those by whom the very 
contrary opinions are held. I do not mean to impute to those noble 
and honourable persons who have been made, perhaps, in many cases, 
the unwilling sharers in those orgies; but I must say, that they are 
deeply responsible by whom this unfounded cry has been set up. 

Lord Eldon —I claim my share of that imputation. 

Lord Plunket assured the noble and learned lord, that all he felt 
it his duty to state on this subject, he said in good feeling towards 
him, and without meaning it in any way offensively to him, for no 
man had a higher respect for the character of the noble and learned 
lord, than he entertained. His argument was, that it was extremely 
unfair to hold out Mr. Pitt as the enemy of Catholic emancipation, 
•md to associate the general principles of that statesman with opposi¬ 
tion to the measure. 

Lord Eldon denied that he had so held out the opinion of Mr. Pitt. 

Lord Plunket —That is exactly what I wanted to hear. But 
whoever sent forth such an erroneous opinion to the country is deeply 
answerable for it. Another insinuation is, that Protestant ascendancy 
is opposed to radicalism, and the inference sought to be obtained is 


CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL. 


375 


that those who support the one are opposed to the other. This also- 
is extremely unfair; because it is well known, that many who are 
sincerely opposed to radicalism are as sincere in support of emancipa¬ 
tion. I will now call the attention of your lordships to a book which 
has been laid before the public, containing a number of letters which 
passed between the late king and one of the members of his council, 
relating to the conscientious scruples entertained by the sovereign, 
as to whether he would be justified in refusing his assent to certain 
measures which might be proposed by the houses of parliament, and 
whether such assent would not be a violation of his coronation oath. 
Now it appears to me, that in the lifetime either of the late king, or 
of the member of the council to whom the letters were addressed, 
their publication would not have been justifiable ; and I also think, 
that the representatives of the noble lord in question were not justi¬ 
fied in placing them before the public. 

Lord Kenyon—M ay I be permitted to say a few words ? (cries of “ order, 
order.’’) 

Lord Plunket — I meant distinctly to convey to the noble lord 
my opinion, that the publication of these letters was not proper; but 
in doing so I never intended to convey anything that was personally 
offensive. I must repeat, that the publication of letters tending to 
influence a measure before parliament, by putting in opposition to it 
the opinion of the late king, was not a fair mode of dealing with the 
subject. When I say this, I mean no insinuation against the sincerity 
of his late majesty. They are the conscientious opinions of an honest 
man, and the mode in which they are put is calculated to endear his 
memory to the people, and prove him a worthy member of the house 
of Brunswick. But it is miserable to think of the use that has been 
made of that opinion, and how the ear of royalty may be abused in 
some cases; for his majesty was made to believe, that he had no 
right to assent to the measure to which the letters referred, and that 
such assent would be a violation of his coronation oath. The opi¬ 
nions of Lord Kenyon were those of a sound lawyer and an honest 
man. What he said was, that it was not incumbent on his majesty 
lo refuse his assent to the repeal of those acts, when the house of 
parliament in proposing that repeal considered it for the benefit of 
the country. In the same view he mentioned that the repeal of the 
Test Act might take place without any breach of the coronation oath 
or the act of Union. His lordship added—it seems to me, that the 
judgment of the person who takes the coronation oath must determine 
whether any particular statute proposed does destroy the government 
of the Established church. It seems that the oath r couched in the 



376 


PLUNKET S SPEECHES. 


general terms in which it is found, does not preclude the parties sworn 
from exercising a judgment whether that he is bound to maintain 
will be essentially, or in any great degree, affected by the proposed 
measure. The noble lord thus left it as a case which might be de¬ 
cided by the exercise of his majesty’s judgment, acting by the advice 
of his responsible ministers. 

I now come to an act upon which much stress has been laid—I 
mean the 30th of Charles II. That act has been made to bear an 
overwhelming influence on this question ; for it is contended, that it 
forms one of the fundamental principles of our constitution. If that 
be so, what a frightful step has been already taken ; for the House 
of Commons has more than once passed a bill for the repeal of part 
of that act, and therefore has agreed to a measure contrary to the 
principles of the constitution. It will be necessary to relieve your 
lordships from such a dangerous consequence as must follow, if the 
principle to which I advert be true. Now I deny that the 30th of 
Charles II. is such a measure as it has been described. It was not 
an act passed with reference to Ireland ; for the exclusion of Roman 
Catholics from seats in parliament in that country did not take place 
till some years after. But I will prove, from legislative records, and 
from the history of those times, that the 30th of Charles II. was 
not then, nor afterwards, considered a fundamental principle of the 
constitution. It was passed at a period after the Restoration, when 
the sovereign was suspected, and not unjustly, of being imbued with 
Roman Catholic principles. Your lordships know, that the first at¬ 
tempt made at that time, in consequence of the supposed opinions of 
the monarch, and those that were known of his probable successor, 
was the bill of exclusion, and that having failed, the 30th of Charles 
II. was substituted. Now, what does that act say? It states that 
many of the mischiefs that had accrued to the country had arisen 
from Popish recusants having access to the throne; and declares 
that as a reason why the oath of supremacy should be taken as a 
qualification for seats in both houses of parliament. I do not deny 
that such an oath may have been necessary at the time ; but I will 
ask, whether that measure has ever been declared permanent and 
unalterable ? The first legislative measure which referred to it after¬ 
wards was the 5th of Anne, when provision was made for the demise 
of the crown; iii the absence of the successor, a regency was pro¬ 
vided, and the regent was declared to be disabled from giving assent 
to the repeal of certain acts. The first of these was the act of Uni¬ 
formity. Mention was made of the 30th of Charles II., but that was 
rejected. Is not this a proof that the act was not considered perma- 



CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL. 


377 


ncnt and unalterable ? The act that was considered permanent, the 
regent was prevented from repealing; but with respect to the other, 
it was left, like an ordinary act, to the discretion of the government 
of the day. The next act to which I shall refer is that of the Union 
of England and Scotland. It was by that act declared, that the 
church of England and the church of Scotland were to be considered 
permanent and unalterable in those countries. But no mention was 
made of the 30th of Charles II.; and when the commissioners pro¬ 
posed that the oath should be taken in Scotland, it was refused, and 
the words were added—until parliament shall otherwise provide. 
I have thus, I conceive, redeemed my pledge of proving that that 
act was never considered a fundamental principle of our constitution. 
It was, as I have observed, passed to prevent the danger of Popish 
recusants having access to his majesty. Now, the 31st of the late 
king took away recusancy, and gave to Popish lords the privilege of 
access to the sovereign; and if that act had gone a little further, it 
would have repealed the whole of the 30th of Charles II., and left 
your lordships little trouble on the subject. This act of the 31st of 
the late king, was two years afterwards extended to Scotland. Here 
there was a repeal of the very ground on which the 30th of Charles II. 
was passed. The object of all these acts, and their only object, was, 
to exclude the temporal power of the Pope: and in all the acts which 
have been passed relating to Ireland, there has been an express pro¬ 
vision that they shall continue until parliament shall otherwise provide. 

I think I have now disposed of all that relates to the 30th of 
Charles II., and redeemed the pledge which I set out by giving. 
The noble and learned lord who preceded me, seems to put upon the 
oath of supremacy an interpretation different from that which I put 
upon it. I think it impossible to take it. My idea of the oath of 
supremacy is, I confess, that, in the strict and literal sense of the 
words, it is impossible to be taken by any person; for it not merely 
denies that any foreign power “ ought to have any authority, eccle¬ 
siastical or spiritual, within this realm but it denies even that any 
foreign power “ hath” any such authority. Now if we admit that 
there are Roman Catholics in this country, the Pope must have spi¬ 
ritual authority here. In the nature of things he must exercise it. 
We may deny his right, but we cannot deny his power while there 
are Roman Catholics in the country. The intent of the oath, no 
doubt, was, that it should be an absolute denial that any foreigu 
power exercised any temporal or spiritual authority, as to the estab¬ 
lished religion of this country. It is perfectly correct, with reference 
to that church, to say, that no foreign potentate hath or ought to 




378 


PLyNfcET’s SPEECHES. 


have any power or authority, temporal or spiritual, over it; bat, as 
to the spiritual concerns of a sect, which was not at that time recog¬ 
nised by the law, we did not prevent them from submitting to foreign 
authority, nor could we do it. And, my lords, I will ask, does the 
king of England exercise any authority in the spiritual concerns ot 
this sect, or could he do so without the sanction of parliament ? Cer¬ 
tainly not, according to the words and nature of that oath; and, as 
long as it continues, the Pope must have that power. I only state that, 
according to the words of the oath, and to the nature of things, this 
must be; but do I mean to advance that this oath is uncontrollable ? 
No ; on the contrary, I think it most important that this power 
should be placed under the control of the state. I think it is a danger 
for which a remedy ought to be provided. I think it a formidable 
thing that there should be an intercourse between the Roman Catholics 
of Ireland and a foreign power—an intercourse which, at present, may 
be innocent, but for the mischievous effects of which hereafter nobody 
can pretend to answer. I say, that, when any specific measure comes 
before your lordships for discussion, I shall join -most heartily in re¬ 
quiring that the appointment of the Catholic clergy should substan¬ 
tially, if not by direct form, rest with the present system of domestic 
nomination, under the control of the state. I agree with noble lords 
in believing that danger may result from the authority now exer¬ 
cised by the Pope in these appointments; but the noble 'lords feel 
that this furnishes them with a good argument against removing the 
Roman Catholic disabilities, and they had rather have the danger 
and the argument, than adopt a course of proceeding which would 
have the effect of doing away both. For myself, my lords, I cannot 
•conceive how anybody, anxious to guard the Protestant establish¬ 
ment, can refuse entertaining this proposition, or joining hand in 
hand with me in carrying it into effect. On the subject of additional 
securities, I am strongly impressed with the conviction that some 
arrangement ought to be made with the see of Rome, by which, in 
the appointment of the Roman Catholic clergy, a substantial control 
should be given to the government ; they should be rendered respec¬ 
table in the eyes of their flocks, and, for that purpose, a competent 
provision should be made for them by the state, not absolutely and 
independently, but, like the Regium Donum, granted to the Protestant 
Dissenters. To this last point some objection may be made on the 
score of our finances, but I can assure noble lords, that they will 
incur much greater expenses by keeping up an army, which, in 
quieter times, would be wholly unnecessary, than would be necessary 
to support the whole of the Catholic clergy. If caution and jealousy 


CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL. 


379 


be thought to be unfounded on the part of the Protestant go¬ 
vernors of the country, still that is no reason that they should 
not at once be conceded. 

I listened with deep attention the other evening to the observations 
made by a right reverend prelate (the Bishop of Durham) on the sub¬ 
ject of divided allegiance ; but I have not been able to collect what 
has been the exact danger that he apprehends, or what he thinks 
likely to happen inimical to the constitution of this country, through 
the interference of the Pope. The only instance I have heard of, in 
which the authority of the see of Borne is at variance with the law 
of this country, relates to marriages. It is held by that power, that 
certain marriages which, according to the law of this country, are 
perfectly valid, are wholly illegal according to the canonical as it is 
there professed. But this is merely an opinion which does not inter¬ 
fere in any degree with the civil rights of parties ; it does not affect 
the legitimacy of children, nor their right to inherit their parents’ 
property, but only expresses the censures of the church against parties 
who are living in what is thought to be a state of sin. This is the 
single instance which has been adduced; but if there had been more, 
they would have added little weight of argument, if they had been of 
a similar character. They are altogether too insignificant, as well as 
too few, to weigh in the minds of statesmen who have an object so 
important to gain as the restoring peace and tranquillity to Ireland. 

My noble and learned friend on the woolsack has said that the 
Roman Catholics decline to give any securities whatever, and that 
this circumstance decides him in voting against them. He says, that 
it entitles him to take away from the ranks of the advocates of Ca¬ 
tholic emancipation, the great names of Pitt, Fox, and others. All 
that I can say to this is, that they did support the measure, and al¬ 
though the event has not happened, to which the noble lord alluded, 
in their lives, it does not follow that they would have refused to continue 
their support, because it had happened subsequently. As to oue of 
them, my view of the matter is borne out. It was in 1813, that the 
securities proposed were refused by the Catholics; but Mr. Canning 
continued to support their cause, and this encourages me to hope, 
that, if they had lived, they would also have continued their support, 
even if the Catholics had refused what was demanded of them. But 
I do not think they did refuse. It is said to be the opinion of the 
great body of the Catholics, that they ought not to give these secu¬ 
rities ; but the opinion of the Catholics as a body should not be taken 
from what is said in public meetings, or from what falls from the 
demagogues and leaders at those meetings, into whose hands we have 


380 


plunket’s speeches. 


thrown them. Neither ought it to be inferred from their silence when 
those opinions are expressed ; in which, they do not perhaps, concur, 
although they dare not contradict them. I confess I think they ought 
to do so. But it is really a matter of no importance, whether they do 
or not agree to the securities. It is for your lordships to do what you 
feel to be right and just. If you think that the measure may be 
safely adopted if accompanied by securities, it is your duty to pass 
it, without any regard to what the Catholics may think of those se¬ 
curities. This, I contend, is one sound principle of legislation. Every 
great body ought first to ascertain what is right and expedient to do, 
and this being ascertained, to carry it into effect. I am as certain as 
I am of my existence, that the great Catholic body would not hesitate 
for a moment to adopt the securities that may be proposed to them. 

But we are asked, how is it to tranquillize Ireland ? I answer, that 
if any noble lord thinks the sole object of this measure is to tran¬ 
quillize Ireland, he is totally mistaken. The object of it is to do an 
act of justice. The tranquillity that may ensue is accessory, and not 
the principal object. Ireland no doubt will then be tranquil, but 
nobody can suppose that this proposition is by itself to be considered 
as a panacea which is to produce immediate and everlasting peace. 
Ireland will still be liable to be disturbed by the angry passions; but 
there will not be that hectic fever which makes Ireland a dead weight 
upon this country, instead of being, as it might be, an accession of 
strength and wealth. There are some other topics on which I wish., 
to touch; but I have occupied so much of your lordships’ time, that . 
I will now conclude. I meant to have made some observations on > 
the Catholic Association. I brought a bill into the other house of 
parliament for putting down that association; but it must be remem¬ 
bered, that I did so in the belief that that measure would be accom-. 
panied by others of a salutary nature. It has not been accompanied 
by any such measures; and I am free to say, that if the bill for put- 
ting down the Catholic Association were now to be brought down 
to the house, I should not feel myself bound under existing circum¬ 
stances to vote for it. I am convinced that any measure, other than 
that which is intended to be founded upon the resolution before the 
house, will fail of accomplishing the tranquillization of Ireland. If 
the discontents and disturbances are stopped up in one place, they 
will break out in another. Nothing can repress them but expedients 
so rigorous that they will be inconsistent with a free country. The 
only effectual method of calming and defeating discontents is by tak¬ 
ing away from the discontented that pretext which their wrongs give 
them. 


ROMAN CATHOLIC OATHS. 


381 


ROMAN CATHOLIC OATHS. 

March 13, 1829. 

At last the hour of victory arrived. The king’s speech of 1829 recommended 
parliament to review the laws imposing civil disabilities on the Catholics, with a 
view to their removal. A second bill for suppressing the Catholic Association 
having passed both houses unanimously, on the 5th of March Peel made that 
great act of humility, his speech introducing the measure of Catholic emancipa- • 
tion. His motion for a committee was carried by a majority of 340 to 160 votes, 
and in a few days the bill was introduced. Meantime the intolerants in the 
upper house uneasily watched the proceedings of the Commons, and Lord Eldon 
tried to pass the time by a motion for an account of the Roman Catholics in 
England who have taken the oaths under the act of 1791, and in Ireland under 
the act of 1793. The Chancellor spoke on the other side, and was followed by 
Plunket. 

Lord Plunket said, that after what had fallen from the noble 
lord who had just sat down, and after the observations which had 
been made by the noble and learned lord who had preceded him, he 
could not avoid trespassing upon their lordships’ attention for a few 
moments. He should feel it his duty, in the first instance, tQ, apply 
himself to some part of that very extensive range, into which the 
noble and learned lord who had introduced this motion, and the 
noble lord who had just sat down, had thought fit to go; and, with 
regard to many of the observations which had fallen from those noble 
lords, he must say, notwithstanding all his respect for those noble lords, 
that they wandered much from the subject immediately before the 
house. Many of the observations of those noble lords applied to a mea¬ 
sure which had passed that house, and which was now beyond their 
lordships’ reach, and to another measure, which was not as yet before 
them, and respecting which any discussion for the present was, to say 
the least of it, out of place and irregular, and one into which he did not 
imagine the noble and learned lord would have strayed. Hu had sup¬ 
posed, that the word “ constitution” would have been struck on* 
the observations of the noble and learned lord for that night; and 
yet all the observations made by that noble and learned lord were 
founded on the assumption, that the measure which had been recom¬ 
mended from the throne to the consideration of parliament would be 
subversive of the constitution of Great Britain. If this were not 
the proper time (as the noble lord himself acknowledged) to discuss 
that measure—if the period for its regular consideration had not as 
yet arrived—was it, he would ask, right or fitting, that observations 
like that should go forth amongst the lower orders in this country, 
and that the poor, the ignorant, and the uneducated, should be taught 
io believe that a measure which had been deliberately recommended 

2 B 


382 


plunket’s speeches. 


from the throne would violate the coronation oath, and subvert the 
Protestant constitution of this country ? He would confess that he 
was somewhat alarmed when he heard the noble and learned lord say y 
that “ upon his own knowledge he could say that his majesty’s con¬ 
sent would never be given.” His apprehensions were greatly excited 
when the noble and learned lord had proceeded thus far in the period; 
but the sentence ended in a way perfectly satisfactory to him, and he 
was sure to all noble lords in that house; namely, “ that his majesty’s 
consent would never be given—to any measure calculated to subvert 
the Protestant constitution of this country.” The noble and learned 
lord might, if he pleased, exercise for the future his talent at pn> 
phecy, but he was not much inclined to attend to the noble and learned 
lord’s lucubrations in that way; for he could not forget that last year 
the noble and learned lord had thought proper to give utterance to a 
prophecy, when the bill for the relief of the Dissenters was before 
their lordships, and the result only proved—how much the noble and 
learned lord had been mistaken. The other noble lord had contended, 
that the government of Ireland ought to have put down the Catholic 
Association, and that they possessed the power to effect that object. 
He was sure it would be some consolation to the noble marquis who 
had lately held the reins of government in Ireland, and to his noble 
friend who sat behind him (the Marquis Wellesley), that they shared 
the censure pronounced by the noble lord, with all the governments 
that had existed in that country since the reign of Henry 11., and 
that the censure had been spread out by the noble lord on so large a 
space, that but a small division of its weight could be allotted as their 
respective portions. He should endeavour to rescue the government 
of that country—the two noble personages that had been alluded to, 
and the distinguished persons that had preceded them in the govern- 
nent of Ireland, from the unfair aspersion which had been cast upon 
hem. He never remembered a period, as long as he was connected 
)r acquainted with the government of Ireland, avhen the laws were 
not fairly administered; and he would maintain that the vices which 
prevented the full, and complete, and satisfactory administration ot 
the laws of that country, were to be found in the laws themselves; 
and that it was absolutely impossible for any government to administer 
such a system of laws, so as to give satisfaction to the country. And 
here he could not avoid remarking, that no observation had ever done 
more mischief amongst the people of Ireland, or had diffused so great 
a disrespect for the laws of that country, as an observation which had 
Men from the noble lord who spoke last;—namely, that “in Ireland 
there was one law for the rich, and another law for the poor; and 


ROMAN CATHOLIC OATHS. 


383 


that both were equally ill-administered.” That observation had passed 
into a proverb, and it was regularly brought forward in every case 
of attack upon the constituted authorities of the country. Now, he 
would say, that no such principle had been acted upon in Ireland. 
He had had a better opportunity of observing the system of govern¬ 
ment pursued there, than the noble lord’s two years’ residence in that 
country afforded him, and he would say, that no charge could be more 
unfounded, and that the law in Ireland had been administered equally 
and impartially. The noble lord had arraigned the Irish government 
fornotputting down the Catholic Association. It was impossible for the 
government of that country to put down the association by force of the 
existing law, or by any law, through the ordinary medium of the legal 
tribunals of the country. He was therefore of opinion, that the mode 
of proceeding recently adopted for putting down the association was 
a wise one,..inasmuch as it armed the government with a summary 
power to put down that body, and to repress any manifestation of 
feeling which its extinction might be calculated to excite. If here¬ 
after there should be evinced a disposition in Ireland to rebel against 
that law, or to evade it, let not such disposition be imputed to the 
framers of the law, but to those who told the people that they could 
drive not merely a donkey-cart but a coach and six through it. 
The noble and learned lord, instead of giving his assistance to render 
that law effectual, told the people of Ireland that it was a flimsy act, 
which they could easily evade. Was it the duty of the noble and 
learned lord—of a person of great experience and legal research— 
instead of devoting his attention to this law, with a view to render 
it calculated for the objects it was intended to accomplish, to come 
down, as he had done, to that house, after it had been passed, and 
to state that it was so imperfect that it would be easily evaded ? The 
noble lord who spoke last had insinuated, that, under the principles 
of the existing common law of the land, the association could have 
been put down. Now, it would be satisfactory to him, and no doubt 
to their lordships generally, to learn from that noble lord any pro¬ 
ceeding at common law, by which that body could have been put 
down. He would not say, that a great portion of the proceedings of 
the association was not contrary to the common law, but he would 
maintain that an indictment against the association would be utterly 
untenable as a principle of common law. It was the law that the 
people could only be represented in parliament. If, therefore, any 
body assumed a representative capacity, and performed the functions 
of parliament it would, in so doing, violate the spirit of the common 
law. But the assertion that where particular laws wero framed to 



384 


plunket’s speeches. 


exclude a people from being represented in parliament, any body that 
represented them for the purpose of petitioning for redress of their 
grievances, came within the principles of the common law, he would 
utterly deny. If the noble lord would point out to him a page in 
the common law—in that body of tradition and written law in which 
it had been handed down—in which it was laid down as a principle, 
that any portion of the people of this country should be permanently 
excluded from parliament, he would engage to show the noble lord, 
in the next page, a principle recognizing the perpetual existence ot 
a committee for sending forward complaints and presenting petitions. 
In looking at the petitions from the people of England, he was satis¬ 
fied that they were entitled to the utmost respect, and they were 
more entitled to respect, as they manifested the strong attachment ot 
the petitioners to the Protestant constitution of this country. So 
far the petitioners were entitled to respect and attention; but when 
they proceeded to express their fears, that a measure for Catholic 
relief would endanger the Protestant constitution of this country, he 
did not think that this house was at all called upon to defer to their 
judgment on that subject. The privilege sought by the Roman Ca¬ 
tholics was admission to the constitution. They sought not to do 
away with any means of security, or to take away any of the privileges 
possessed by the people of this country. But if it were a portion ot 
the privileges of the people of this country, that any portion of the 
people should be shut out from the benefits of the constitution, and if, 
to take away from the Catholics the privilege of sitting in parliament, 
or of filling offices in the state, was to confer a privilege on the Protes¬ 
tants, he would say, that it was downright robbery and injustice. If 
you should take a thing from A and give it to B, that was an act ot 
unqualified injustice ; and so the principle which recognized the ex¬ 
clusion of the Catholics as a privilege belonging to the Protestants 
was one of robbery and injustice. 

Did the noble lord mean to say that the people who had as¬ 
sembled at these meetings to prepare anti-Catholic petitions, who were 
gathered at parish vestries and parish meetings, were persons compe¬ 
tent to instruct parliament as to the true law on these points ? Let 
the noble lord, when he came to argue this question at the proper 
time, go himself into all the points connected with the laws and tne 
constitution ; and let him then show, if he could, that the measure 
for the removal of Catholic disabilities was calculated to shake the 
foundations of the constitution of these realms; but to say that the 
lower orders of the people could give information to the house on 
these mysterious, he would call them, and higher classes of public 


BOMAN CATHOLIC OATHS. 


S85 


policy, was ludicrously absurd. Let noble lords but for a moment 
reflect upon the nature of the union between Great Britain and Ire« 
land, and they must at once perceive, that it was a dangerous mistake, 
to say that the opinion of the people of England should be committed 
against the rights and privileges of the people of Ireland. He would 
not say, that at the period of the Union, there had been an express 
understanding and agreement with the people of Ireland that it would 
be followed up by the measure of emancipation, but there was cer¬ 
tainly a very general expectation that, as soon as the Union was 
passed, a measure of that description would follow. Lord Cornwallis, 
Lord Castlereagh, and Mr. Pitt, who had been principally instrumen¬ 
tal in having the Union carried in Ireland, when they found that it 
was not to be followed by emancipation, retired from the councils of 
his majesty. Now, let their lordships suppose, that the Union had 
never been carried, and that the parliament of Ireland still existed; 
and suppose a measure, restoring their rights and privileges to the 
great body of the Irish people, had obtained the assent of the crown 
and of the parliament of that country, would it be endured by the 
Irish people, that they should not regulate their own concerns, because 
the opinion of the lower classes of the people of England was against 
the measure ? The persons who ascribed dangers to the constitution 
from this measure would never think of doing so, if the Union had 
not existed; those persons adopted a line of proceeding calculated to 
shake the foundations of that Union, and to raise up a principle of 
national hatred, which, combined with the principle of religious hatred, 
would operate doubly against the liberty, happiness, and peace of the 
country. He would now take the liberty of making a few observa¬ 
tions, in reference to the motion which had been introduced by the 
noble and learned lord. He must say, that that noble and learned 
lord had not dealt with the question with his usual frankness. The 
noble and learned lord said, that his measure did not deal with Ire¬ 
land at all, while the greater portion of the noble and learned lord’s ob¬ 
servations were applied to the system which had been adopted in Ire* 
land, to give the Catholics the opportunity of obtaining admission to 
eertain offices and privileges, on complying with certain conditions 
imposed by the legislature. With regard to the argument which the 
noble and learned lord had raised on the point respecting the succes* 
sion, it was sufficient to state the simple facts, to afford a full answer 
to the noble and learned lord. In the year 1774 an act was passed 
which required from the Roman Catholics a declaration to support 
the succession of the royal famiiy. After that act was so framed in 
Ireland, the act of 1778 was framed, and he would call their lord- 


$86 


plunket’s speeches. 


ships’ attention to the form of oath which was employed in that act 
—the 18th George III., c. 6. By that act the exact phraseology of 
the Irish act of the 13th and 14th of the king was adopted; and he 
would beg their lordships’ attention to the mode in which that act of 
the 18th of the king was passed in this country. It was introduced 
into parliament, not by the advocates of the Roman Catholics—it was 
brought forward by two distinguished men at that time, who were re¬ 
markable for their devoted attachment to the Protestant establish* 
ments of this country; he alluded to Sir George Saville and Mr. Dun¬ 
ning. That act was taken up by Lord Tlfirlow, who was then attor- 
ney-general; who said, he would give his best attention to it, and 
would follow it up through all its details. Under such circumstances, 
that act was passed in Great Britain, and, unfortunately, it was after¬ 
wards followed up by the Irish parliament, and its very phraseology 
adopted. What object could there be for that conspiracy, the exis¬ 
tence of which the noble and learned lord would seem to suppose ? 
They pledged themselves to support the succession to the throne in 
the House of Hanover, but as the words “ being Protestants” were 
omitted, it was at once to be assumed, that these Catholic conspira* 
tors had provided for an-occasion when some member of that house 
might become a Papist, and when, the other members remaining Pro¬ 
testants, it would be open to the Catholics to join the professor of 
their own creed, and support his claims to the crown. It was for 
such an improbable, such a wild and ludicrous purpose, that they 
must believe the existence of such a conspiracy. After the act of 
1778 had been adopted in England, then came the act which passed 
in the Irish parliament in 1782 ; and he would beg to call their lord- 
ships’ attention to that act. The act of 1782, finding that the pre¬ 
vious act of the 13th and 14th of the king had already provided a 
declaration for the Catholics, and that the language of that act had 
been adopted in the English act, proceeded upon the authority of the 
act of the 13th and 14th of the king, strengthened by the act of 
1778 inEngland, to enact in these words :—“ that, whereas, all such 
of his majesty’s subjects in this kingdom, and all persons whatsoever, 
who shall hereafter take and subscribe the oath and declaration pre¬ 
scribed by the 13th and 14th George III., ought to be considered 
good and loyal subjects of his majesty.” There was the conspiracy! 
These were the conspirators who, by taking this declaration, were en¬ 
titled to be considered good and loyal subjects of his majesty ! 

The act then proceeded to enable those who subscribed and took that 
oath to fill those situations and obtain those privileges, which were 
then opened to them on such conditions. He next came to the Irish 


JROMAN CATHOLIC OATHS. 


387 


act of 1793. In the meantime, the English act of 1791 had been 
passed, in which the words “ being Protestants” were introduced 
after the words “ the Princess Sophia, and the heirs of her body.” 
The noble lord who spoke last had said, that he had known Catholics 
object to take that oath. He krfew not upon what authority the 
noble lord stated that circumstance ; but it was remarkable, that it 
was the first time that he had ever heard of the objection having been 
made. As for the act of parliament itself, it was strong enough. 
The noble lord contrasted it with the Irish act of 1793. Previous 
to the passing of that act, the Roman Catholics of Ireland had pub¬ 
lished a declaration, disavowing, in the most unequivocal terms, the 
odious and revolting doctrines which had been imputed to them. The 
act of 1793 was not introduced by an advocate of the Roman Catho¬ 
lics. It was an act brought forward on the authority of government, 
and introduced into parliament by Mr. Secretary Hobart. A right 
honourable gentleman, now no more, at the time said, that it would 
be a good thing to embody in it the declaration made by the Catho¬ 
lics disavowing the odious tenets imputed to them. The suggestion 
was adopted, and that was the only oath to be found in the act of 
1793. The oath framed for Roman Catholics by that act, and re¬ 
quired to be taken by them, must be considered by them as a degra¬ 
dation in itself; for it contained the disavowal of the most abomi¬ 
nable and odious doctrines. But the act of 1793 did not first intro¬ 
duce the other oath which was at present taken. The act of 1793 
said, that the persons who abjured those obnoxious tenets, and who 
took the oath prescribed by the former act—the 13th and 14th of 
the king—should be entitled to all the privileges which the laws then 
conferred on Roman Catholics. From what he was now going to 
state, their lordships would see what credit was due to the assertions 
of the noble lord. In the year 1813, a bill for Catholic emancipa¬ 
tion was introduced by his lamented and eloquent friend, the late 
Mr. Grattan. The bill was criticised by the agitators in Ireland. 
They quarrelled with a great part of its enactments; and they 
cavilled most against the details of the bill; yet, though the oath 
proposed by Mr. Grattan was similar to that contained in the act of 
1791, they never mentioned it among their objections to the bill. Wha^ 
had taken place between 1792 and 1812 to cause such a change in 
the sentiments of the Catholics ? It remained, indeed, for the noble 
lord, and those who had informed him that the Catholics objected 
to the oath in the act of 1791, to state what had occurred between 
1793 and 1813, that had effected such an extraordinary change in 
the opinions of the Roman Catholic body. In the Catholic bill which 





388 


plunket’s speeches. 


he (Lord Plunket) proposed in 1821, the oath of the act of 1791 was 
not introduced in terms; for the frame of that bill was different from 
that of the bill of 1813. In that bill of 1821 that oath was not in¬ 
troduced, as he proposed a common oath to be taken both by Catho¬ 
lics and Protestants. The oath which he proposed in that bill was 
intended, with slight alterations, to be taken respectively by Protes¬ 
tants and Catholics; and such an oath rendered that of 1791 unne¬ 
cessary. In the bill which he introduced in 1825, and which passed 
the House of Commons, the oath of the 13th and 14th of the kin^ 
was again resorted to. In the year 1825 there was no such con¬ 
spiracy of Catholics as that represented by the noble lords to have 
existed in 1793. Indeed there was not the shadow of a conspiracy 
ever suspected by any one, until those noble lords went so far back 
as 1778, endeavoured to rake up the ashes of fifty years past, and 
thought it fit and proper to cast imputations on the loyalty of the 
Roman Catholics, who, he would take the liberty to say, were as 
little open to such an imputation, and had evinced as strong and un¬ 
impeached loyalty, as those noble lords themselves. They had 
evinced their loyalty by deeds, by oaths, and by the continued pro¬ 
bity of their entire character. Surely the noble lord would not de¬ 
scend to the level of the vulgar and ignorant crowd, and join them in 
asserting that the Catholics were not to be trusted on their oaths ? 
If the noble lord would join in such a vulgar and unfounded prejudice 
against the Catholics, aud would then require them to swear to abide 
by a Protestant sovereign, the noble lord would, in that case, be ob¬ 
liged to say, that they had sworn falsely ; and where then was the 
utility of the noble lord’s precautions ? He had no objection to the 
production of the returns moved for by the noble and learned lord; 
but if the noble and learned lord, from the scantiness of those returns, 
should attempt to draw an argument against the Roman Catholics, he 
would tell him that he was much mistaken. The argument would 
be the same against Protestants as against Roman Catholics. The 
oath prescribed would not, in any instance, be taken by a Roman Ca¬ 
tholic, except for the purpose of obtaining some office, or getting rid 
of some penalty under the act. With regard to the Roman Catnolic 
priesthood, it would be found that, in every instance, they had taken 
the oath prescribed by the act of 1793. Their object in doing so 
was to remove the penalty of premunire, to which they otherwise 
would be liable. So when an office, situation, or livelihood, was to 
be obtaiued by a Roman Catholic layman, for which the taking of this 
oath was one of the qualifications, it would be found that, in every 
such instance, it had been taken With respect to the Roman Ca- 





CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL. 


389 


tholic clergy in the College of Maynooth-^upon which college heavy 
and unfounded slanders had been thrown out, which he would take 
another occasion to refute and expose—not one of them had been 
three months in that college without being obliged by the superior to 
take this oath. In order to show that oaths of this nature had been 
only taken where a necessity for taking them as a qualification arose s 
he would move, as an amendment on the motion of the noble lord, 
for a return of the number of Protestants of the Established church 
of Great Britain and Protestant Dissenters who had taken the oaths 
of allegiance, abjuration, and supremacy. It would then appear, that 
Protestants as well as Catholics only took those oaths prescribed by 
law when they found them necessary as a qualification for some office 
or employment. Under the 1st of George I., c. 13, the Protestants 
of Great Britain were obliged to take the oaths of supremacy and ab¬ 
juration; and this act was extended to Ireland by the 6 th of George 
III., c. 55 (confirmed by the 21st of the same reign), which rendered 
it obligatory on the Protestants and Protestant Dissenters of that 
country to take oaths of abjuration. Now, in order to show that 
those men, of undoubted loyalty to the House of Brunswick, the 
Protestants and Protestant Dissenters, only took those oaths when, 
like the Catholics, with regard to the oaths of the acts of 1791 and 
1793, they had a particular purpose for so doing, he would move, 
that, in addition to the returns called for by the noble and learned 
lord, returns should also be made of the number of Protestauts and 
Protestant Dissenters who had neglected to take oaths enjoined by 
the 1st of George I., and by the 6th and 21st of George III., in 
Great Britain and Ireland, since 1813, the period of the noble and 
learned lord’s motion. 


CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL. 

April 4, 1829. 

The Catholic Relief Bill came to the upper house on the 1st of April, and was 
debated for a second reading next day. The Duke of Wellington led the dis¬ 
cussion with a distinct intimation that the king’s government in Ireland had be¬ 
come impossible without Catholic emancipation. The two Protestant primates, 
Canterbury and Armagh, followed in opposition. The Bishop of Oxiord and 
the Bishop of Salisbury succeeded—the first offering his resolute support, the 
other his “ cordial negative” to the bill. After a debate of not very remarkable 
length or ability, the house adjourned to the following day. The great autho¬ 
rities of the Lords then, and on the third day, delivered their opinions. The 
Archbishop of York and the Bishop of Durham commenced the discussion in ser¬ 
mons saturated with a thorough odium theologicam. The Duke of Sussex *np- 
ported the government with a very learned and a very amiable essay on l^gal 







390 


plunket’s speeches. 


persecution. The lofty and statesmanlike argument of Earl Grey immediately 
preceded Lord Eldon raging with baffled bigotry, and uttering weird predictions 
of the endless evils which toleration of Popery would be sure to introduce. 
Plunket appears to have been on the watch for the old Chancellor, and for a sig¬ 
nal opportunity of closing the great argument to which for so many years he had 
devoted his mind. This speech ends the debate, which decided the liberties of 
the Catholic people of the empire. After a few explanations, and a brief formal 
reply from the Duke of Wellington, the house divided, and the bill was read a 
- second time by a majority of 105. 

Mr lords—I assure your lordships that I have not reserved myself 
for this late period of the debate, under the impression that I have 
any claim to review the arguments which have been adduced in the 
course of it by noble lords who resist the proposed measure. But, 
my lords, the noble and learned lord who has just sat down, having 
repeatedly declared in this house, at an early period of your discus¬ 
sions, and having through the medium of this house loudly and de¬ 
cidedly proclaimed to the people of this country, that the measure 
announced by his majesty’s government wa3 opposed to the Protest¬ 
ant religion and the safety of its establishment, and subversive of 
those fundamental principles of the constitution which had been 
established at the periods of the Reformation and Revolution, and 
having undertaken to demonstrate the truth of these assertions when¬ 
ever the proper time should arrive for so doing, I did think myself 
justified, if not bound, to wait for the fulfilment of that pledge. 

My lords, after the commanding arguments of my noble and 
learned friend on the woolsack, and of my noble friend behind me 
(Earl Grey), I own I did listen with intense curiosity to the observa¬ 
tions of the noble and learned lord ; but I must say that that curiosity 
has been completely and agreeably disappointed. The noble and 
learned lord must excuse me for saying—and I say it with every 
feeling of personal respect for him—that the alarming denunciations 
of danger and destruction to our religion and our constitution, with 
which the noble and learned lord at the outset assailed this measure, 
rest at this moment where they originally did, upon the high autho¬ 
rity of the noble and learned lord, but unsupported either by fact or 
argument, or by parliamentary or historical documents. Before, how¬ 
ever, I apply myself particularly to this legal part of the subject, your 
lordships will, I trust, excuse me, if I venture to make some general 
observations on the subject; I shall not do so at any great length ; 

T but, my lords, after having anxiously watched the progress of this 
momentous question for more than thirty years, and seeing it now 
Approaching, as I trust it is, rapidly and certainly to its final consum¬ 
mation, I think I owe it to the house, to the subject, and to myself 
to state some of the grounds on which I rest my support of it. 


CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL. 


391 


My lords,'! wish to proceed at once to the consideration of the 
actual state in which the country is now placed, and to justify tht 
proposed measure on the ground of its adoption being necessary foi 
the safety, if not for the actual existence, of Ireland in connexion 
with Great Britain. But a right reverend prelate has stated, that 
expediency is not a principle on which a statesman is justified in 
acting; but I think the right reverend prelate was under the neces¬ 
sity of finally admitting the exactness of the proposition stated by 
one of his right reverend brethren, the Regius Professor of Oxford, 
that where no principle of justice is violated, expediency is a sound 
principle of political action. If this be so,! ask what principle of 
justice is violated by the present measure? Is it a violation of jus¬ 
tice to admit millions of the inhabitants of these countries to the 
privileges of citizens. I have always understood the principle of our 
constitution, and of every sound and free constitution, to be that laid 
down by my noble friend (Earl Grey) and, as I now collect, not dis¬ 
sented from by the noble and learned lord ; namely, that admission 
to parliament, to office, and to franchise, is the principle, and that 
exclusion from any of them is the exception, and that such exception 
can be justified only upon grounds of necessity or of political expe¬ 
diency of the highest degree. The people in this case claim a right 
to share in the making and administering those laws by which they 
are to be governed, and this right can be resisted on no other ground 
than that of a clearly demonstrated expediency. They are excluded 
it is admitted by acts of the legislature, excused or justified only on 
the supposition that they were expedient at the time of their enact¬ 
ment. But if it can be shown that the expediency on which the 
exclusion was founded has passed away, or that there are motives of 
expediency for the repeal of those laws, infinitely transcending those 
which led to their enactment, what pretenee can be found for pre¬ 
cluding us from acting on the principles of right, of justice, of expe¬ 
diency, and of necessity, in the adoption of such measures as are 
applicable to the actual circumstances of the country ? 

What then, my lords, is the state of Ireland ? My lords, it is a 
great mistake to suppose, that for the last fifty years Ireland has, 
with respect to her civil concerns, been badly governed. Ou the 
contrary, it is but justice to the British government to say, that dur« 
ing that period a wise and liberal system of policy has, in that 
respect, been adopted. You have opened to her, without distinction 
of Protestant from Catholic, all those channels of wealth which flow 
from unrestricted freedom of trade—you have given to all classes of 
her people an equality of civil rights—ydh have enabled her to ao« 



392 


plunket’s speeches. 


cumulate all the great materials of national strength—yon have 
raised her from the state of wretchedness and poverty, and ignorance 
and abjectness, in which the penal code had sunk her—yon have 
associated her with yoursolves in the concerns of this great empire, 
and have kindled in the minds of her people all those proud and in¬ 
dependent feelings which belong to a powerful nation, associated with 
yourselves in those high duties which so materially affect the destinies 
of the civilised world. 

See then, my lords, what has been the consequence. It is this 
—that having advanced in this full tide of civil prosperity, with a 
rapidity surpassing your most sanguine calculations, she is at this mo¬ 
ment in a state of political danger and disorganization without a parallel 
in the history of any other country in Europe. What is the cause 
of this strange result ? My lords, the statement of the evil unfolds 
the cause and demonstrates the remedy. The state of things is “ un¬ 
exampled civil prosperity, and unexampled political danger.” Where 
is the cause of this disproportion between the advance of national 
prosperity and the attainment of happiness and safety ? I answer, 
“ in the lawsin this, my lords, that the uniform course of the laws 
w r hich regulate the civil rights of the subject, has been, for more than 
half a century, not only in advance beyond those which regulate their 
political rights, but in irreconcilable contradiction to their principles. 
Why, then, if you see the mischief and the cause, there can be but 
one course as to the remedy, “ put down the mischief, and correct 
the laws which produce it.” The noble duke at the head of the 
government has, therefore, most wisely proposed, and you have most 
wisely passed, a law for putting down the Roman Catholic Associ¬ 
ation ; but I say “ wisely,” only because you follow your process of 
coercion with the great measure of relief, which alone can render it 
effectual. That, or any other expedient which human policy could 
devise, must be impotent for any purpose of lasting good, so long as 
you leave the great body of the people compressed into union, by 
grievances galling and insulting, and which it is not in the nature of 
freeborn men to endure without complaint. 

My lords, the truth and extent of these mischiefs and miseries 
cannot be duly appreciated by noble lords who have never personallv 
witnessed them. It is not that parties are opposed to parties, or sects 
to sects, or one part of the kingdom to another; it is not like anything 
that I can trace in history; it mixes itself in every transaction in 
public or in private life, obstructs every duty, embarrasses every 
dealing, poisons every enjoyment, haunting every movement of busi¬ 
ness, of obligation, or of social intercourse. 




CATnOLIC RELIEF BILL. 


393 


My lords, the violent reclamation against the projected measure 
which has been made on the part of many of the Protestants in Ire¬ 
land, does not grow from a religious panic, or any apprehension for 
the safety of the Protestant establishment, as in this country; nor 
again, from a sordid desire of monopoly, which I do not believe ex¬ 
ists to any considerable extent in either country. No, my lords, the 
feeling which, I frankly own, bursts spontaneously from the hearts 
of the great body of the lower classes of Protestants and Protestant 
Dissenters, especially in the north of Ireland, is that of resentment 
at being deprived of the enjoyment of a sense of superiority, which 
has been bred by the law, and in which they have indulged for more 
than a century; the right of putting out their hand and pushing back 
their equals in their progress to an honourable station in society—a 
orivilege from which they derive no substantial benefit, no advantage 
other than the luxury of insulting and degrading their fellow-citizens. 
My lords, it is this perpetual consciousness of legal superiority which 
elevates the brow of the Protestant, and corrodes the heart, and 
breaks down till it rouses to fury the elastic spirit of his Roman Ca¬ 
tholic neighbour. 

My lords, in the higher classes of society, this feeling is corrected 
by courtesy and by those habits which belong to rank and to education. 
In this house (although I think I have heard the topic of idolatry 
pushed rather beyond its due limit,) the exclusion is justified on prin¬ 
ciples of state policy. It is said, “ You are very worthy and honour¬ 
able people, we respect you very much, but we are sorry that there are 
political reasons which require the continuance of your exclusion from 
the state.” But in Ireland, my lords, and amongst the classes which 
compose the great body of the persons who exult in their legal supe¬ 
riority, the language is more offensive than even the exclusion. “ You 
are an idolater—you are not to be believed on your oath—your reli¬ 
gion is odious, and corrupt, and unchristian. What claim can you 
have to be associated with us in the exercise of the privileges of free¬ 
men ?” “ What!” says the Protestant shopkeeper, “ shall I think 

myself safe, or fairly dealt with, if a Roman Catholic judge has any 
share in the administration of the laws by which I am to be governed?” 
What must the Roman Catholic gentleman feel, on the other hand ? 
“ Am I fairly dealt with, and am I to feel thankful when the law by 
which I am to be governed is administered exclusively by Protes¬ 
tants ?” It is not that they are not well and fairly administered, but 
the claim and the principle are founded in folly and insolence, and it 
is not in human nature that this daily and hourly claim of unmeaning 
superiority can be patientlv endured, and the very circumstance that 


f 



394 


plunket’s speeches. 


the refusal of the participator is so worthless to the Protestant, and 
that he forfeits no advantage by the participation, aggravates the re¬ 
sentment of the Roman Catholic, by marking, more distinctly that the 
exclusion rests upon a principle of useless and gratuitous insult. Why, 
then, my lordsj every individual whose resentment is kindled by these 
orivations is sensible that the brand which stigmatises him as an in¬ 
dividual, is a religious brand which dishonours his entire sect; why 
then there needs no plan of organization to combine all these indivi¬ 
dual discontents. The combination, and hostile combination, of the 
entire Roman Catholic population is formed by the laws; the insult 
is given by the laws. And then when you see all these individual 
resentments embodied in one great national confederation, you wonder 
at this monster of your own creation, and cry out against those who 
do not put down the existence of this force, which is beyond the reach 
of the ordinary power of the state. My lords, persons who, I doubt 
not, meant well, but who were utterly mistaken as to the real state 
of Ireland, told you, “ never mind, the people don’t care about the 
thing.” A noble earl now no more, of whom I must ever speak with 
the highest respect, was misled by those assertions, and the answer to 
the question on the secret committee in Ireland was relied on, “ Do 
the Roman Catholics attach the value of this drop of ink, or of this • 
pen to the obtaining of Roman Catholic emancipation ?” 

The noble and learned lord who spoke last, has even now stated, 
that Catholic emancipation was a pretence used by Jacobins and 
Radicals to cover their real designs against the constitution. 

[Here Lord Eldon said that he had alluded only to the period of 1798.] 

My lords, if the period of 1798 has no bearing on the present times, 
or on the present question, why did the noble and learned lord call it 
to his aid ? In whatever degree he applied it, I think I am justified 
in meeting it, and I cannot but observe that it seems whimsical to 
suppose that, if Roman Catholic emancipation was a subject devoid 
of interest, it should be resorted to as a colour for the purpose of ex* 
citing interest. 

[Lord Eldon made some further observations in the nature of a disclaimer & 
the topic.] 

My lords, I do not press the subject further on the noble and 
learned lord; nothing can, in my opinion, be more unjust than to seek 
to fasten, either on individuals or on classes of individuals, opinions 
which they disclaim. But, my lords, the fact is now beyond contro¬ 
versy, that these absurd and useless exclusions have united the whole 
body of the Roman Catholic people, from the highest to the lowest; 


CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL. 


395 


and you have formed into a confederation against you, a powerful peo¬ 
ple, agitated by the two most active stimulants that can affect the 
mind of man—resentment for insult to their persons, and for insult to 
their religion. How then do they, and must they act ? By continual 
claim against continual grievance—continual meetings must be had to 
give expression and effect to those claims—leaders distinguished by 
their enthusiasm and talents must acquire an ascendancy ; to main¬ 
tain that ascendancy they must invite or yield to everything that is 
extravagant and seditious ; and thus you have the Roman Catholic 
Association, with all its dangers- and all its licentiousness, necessarily 
formed and perpetuated by your own laws. 

My lords, you can no longer affect not to see this terrifying state of 
things. There exists at this moment, or did exist when this measure of 
grace and justice was announced—for it fled, like a troubled spirit, at the 
very dawn of conciliation—but there exists, sleeping or waking, a 
power beyond the state; not a transient tumultuary movement, not 
a casual rising against the peace, but a permanent confederation, 
resting on the sympathies of the great body of the people, indissolu¬ 
bly combined for the attainment of just objects which they never can 
abandon ; growing out of the essence of your legalizing—involving 
in their constitution every principle of misrule, sucking into their 
vortex everything which is involved in the common grievance, or 
which chooses to attach to it its own interests and passion, bidding 
for all the rank and property and talents and enthusiasm and virtue,, 
and for all the folly and sedition and madness which are scattered 
through the great mass of society; which shall predominate, depend¬ 
ing on the accidental character of their leaders; holding all the com¬ 
ponent parts of society in a state of solution, uncertain what may be 
raised to the top or what may sink to the bottom ; exciting the oc¬ 
cupiers of the soil, putting aside the proprietor, arming itself with all 
the powerful energies of religion, or defying all its wholesome influ¬ 
ences as best may suit the purpose of the hour. These, my lords, 
are the terrible ingredients of that unnatural power which the vices 
of your exclusive system have engendered. That these desperate ele¬ 
ments of mischief have not burst upon us, we owe to the vigilance of our 
government, to the wholesome effects of the liberal policy by which 
you have ameliorated the condition of the people, to the confidence 
they have felt in the growing liberality of parliament, to the unwil¬ 
lingness of the leaders to involve themselves in any act of violation 
of the public peace, by which they themselves and the country might 
be desperately committed; but above all, under God’s providence, 
to the continuance of peace, and the absence of any foreign enemy. 


396 


plunket’s speeches. 


But, my lords, this is a precarious tenure by which to hold the peace 
and safety of these countries. This state of things cannot endure. 
The scenes which have passed in Ireland within the last two years 
must not be reacted. 

Noble lords say, “ Trust to time, and to wise institutions for im- 
proving the condition of the people.” My lords, there are evils for 
which time or wise institutions can bring no cure; on the contrary, 
they must be more deeply aggravated every day and every hour 
My lords, in a wholesome and natural state of society every acces¬ 
sion of wealth is a new pledge of public safety; but, in the unfortu¬ 
nate perversion of principles which constitutes the character of the 
existing laws, the dangers and the mischiefs grow in exact propor¬ 
tion to the increase of all the ordinary ingredients of public prosperity. 
If I am asked, who are the most discontented and dangerous mem¬ 
bers of society in Ireland ? I must answer, and no person acquainted 
with that country will contradict me—“ Those who have most recently 
and rapidly been raised to comfort and opulence.” Increase the pros¬ 
perity of Ireland threefold, and she will be three times as dangerous. 
The vice of your laws changes wholesome nutriment into poison. You 
must abandon the chimerical attempt to separate political power 
from those civil rights which are the foundation and substance of all 
power. You have undertaken the impossible problem of governing 
rational beings, surrounded by free institutions, upon the principle of 
their not being worthy to share in them; to govern a free people on 
the principle of their being bad subjects, or to shut out the people 
who are admitted to be good subjects from all share in the political 
constitution of our representative government; to rest the frame of 
government neither upon substantial power nor upon public opinion; 
these are solecisms gross, and exploded by the universal consent 
of mankind; false in theory, and condemned by the acknowledged 
policy of every free government in the world except our own. 

My lords, I cannot say that I have ever met with any person 
who directly asserts that the present state of things can continue. 
The noble and learned lord, indeed, has intimated that these evils 
may be cured by the force of the common law. My lords, I have 
again and again applied my mind to what nas been asserted, or 
hinted by the noble and learned lord; I have endeavoured to ascer¬ 
tain his meaning, and to find some practical application of it; and 
"ith every degree of respect for him, I am obliged to declare, 
solemnly and unaffectedly, that I am not able to arrive at the most 
distant guess at what he proposes, even as a means of punishment; 
but with respect to the quieting or governing ray unfortunate coua- 


CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL. 


397 


try, it is a perfect mockery. My lords, I defy the ingenuity of any 
man to find a principle to arrest the vital current of a people’s justi¬ 
fied feelings, or to prevent the demonstration of them. It has all the 
effect of cruel trifling (though I am sure not so intended) with the feel¬ 
ings of those whose lot is cast in the midst of the terrible crisis, to talk of 
applying the latent principles of the common law to the throbbing 
temples and to the dry and burning frame which is consuming under 
this unremitting hectic. Let us not disguise the bitter alternative ; 
this terrible state cannot continue, and it must be put down, either 
by force of arms or by the repeal of the laws which inflict the griev¬ 
ances. 

My lords, of this alternative his majesty’s ministers have chosen 
the latter part; and in obedience to his majesty’s gracious communi¬ 
cation, in which he has called on us to find a remedy for those evils, 
consistently with the safety of our establishments in church and state, 
the noble duke has proposed a measure which, in my judgment, is 
appropriate and adequate; finding the evil in the unsuitableness of 
the law to the existing state of the country, he proposes to correct 
the law, and to do that which is the basis of the whole science of 
legislation—to accommodate the law to the circumstances of those on 
whom it is to operate ; and instead of leaving us exposed to the risk 
of some fearful hour of public difficulty, in which those thunder¬ 
clouds that hang over us might rush into collision, he has availed 
himself of this auspicious moment, while we are in profound peace 
abroad, and while yet the hostile parties into which Ireland is divided 
are unstained with the guilt and horrors of civil war, to submit to 
the consideration of your lordships the measure which is now before 
you. Whether it is fitted to produce those glorious results, it is for 
you, my lords, to judge; but in this respect at least, it appears to 
me strictly to preserve the condition pointed out in the royal speech, 
that it cautiously abstains from touching any part of our religious 
establishments, or from making any the slightest innovation w upon 
any part of our Protestant institutions. 

It has, indeed, been very confidently asserted, that the Protestant 
church is endangered, and the Protestant religion attacked, by the 
present measure. I shall beg leave very briefly to address myself 
to the right reverend bench on this subject; and I do assure them 
with no unfriendly voice. I am sure they will do me the justice to 
acknowledge that my uniform conduct in respect to them entitles me 
to say so; and I should be willing, my lords, to lay this bill alongside 
the coronation oath, and I would ask to have any one iota pointed 
out in which the one interferes with the other. Poes it propose to 




398 


plunket’s speeches. 


take away from the bishops or clergy of this realm, or from the 
churches committed to their charge, any property or privilege which 
by law appertain to them ? Does it propose to meddle with any 
article of their faith ? Does it introduce into their religious estab¬ 
lishment, or to any of its offices or emoluments, any person who does 
not acknowledge their creed or subscribe to their articles ? Does the 
admission of freeborn men and loyal subjects to constitutional rights 
violate the laws of God or the true profession of the gospel ? But, 
my lords, the argument grounded on the coronation oath has been, I 
think, in the course of the present discussions nearly if not altogether 
abandoned, and I shall not at this hour consume your lordships’ time 
by any further observations upon it. 

But it is urged, that though the present measure does not directly 
attack the church, yet, by the admission of Roman Catholics into 
parliament, it may lead to such consequences. My lords, the right 
reverend personages who state their apprehensions need not be re- ; 
minded of the caution which is necessary in the application of an ar¬ 
gument ; which refuses a present good, or submits to a present evil, 
solely from the apprehension of a remote and future danger; what is 
present we know; what is future we can only conjecture; and every 
right reverend person will, I am sure, candidly admit to me that he 
should be well satisfied of the grounds of probability on which his 
anticipations rest, and of the reality of the dangers or mischiefs which 
he forbodes, before he refuses to act on the demands of present duty 
and expediency. What, then, are the grounds on which these appre¬ 
hensions rest ? First, on the supposition that the Roman Catholics, 
if admitted to power, would aim at the subversion of our establish¬ 
ment ; and second, that they might be able to effect that object. 1 
will briefly advert to each branch of the supposition. On what prin¬ 
ciple is it assumed that the Roman Catholics are enemies to our es¬ 
tablishment ? A most reverend prelate (the Archbishop of York) 
has candidly borne testimony to the virtues of those Roman Catholic 
with whom he has happened to be acquainted; indeed, the righ 
reverend bench in general have, in a manner which reflects credi 
upon them as gentlemen and as Christians, acknowledged the honour 
and probity of the great body of the Roman Catholics Why, then, m } 
lords, they are willing to swear, and by this bill they are reauired to 
swear, that they will not use their privileges to disturb or weaken the 
Protestant establishment. . Now, I really cannot understand what is 
meant by saying that a man i3 amiable, exemplaryin the discharge of all 
the duties of life, and that he is a most worthy moral character, and 
yet that you will not believe him on hi 3 oath. Why then, if you will 


CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL. 


399 


not believe his oath or his assertions, look to his acts. Have the body 
of the Roman Catholics done any act of hostility to the church estab¬ 
lishment ? It is true, as has been stated by the noble and learned 
lord, that in -the eager prosecution of their political claims, very fool¬ 
ish and angry speeches have been made at public meetings, both by 
priests and laymen, with reference to the Protestant church; and 
with great deference to the noble and learned lord, I have seldom 
known a public political meeting in which very idle and foolish speeches 
have not been made; and it is not perhaps much to be wondered at, 
if upon such occasions the Roman Catholics have retorted with vio¬ 
lence and indiscretion, the acrimony with which they had been as¬ 
sailed. But it is too much to say, that because two or three angry 
priests or demagogues have expressed themselves intemperately or 
indecently at public meetings, the feelings so expressed by them are 
in accordance with those of the whole Roman Catholic body. My 
lords, no body of people of any persuasion could stand such a test. 
The Roman Catholics, rely on it, whatever may have been said by 
any individuals of their body, have never attempted to offer any in¬ 
jury to the Established church, and they are ready to swear that they 
will not. “No,” the opponents say, “this will not do;” for they 
know the sentiments of the Roman Catholics better than the Roman 
Catholics themselves, and that they are bound in conscience and duty 
to subvert our establishment. My lords, this assertion is purely 
gratuitous; it is not only unproved, but it cannot be proved. To 
show this it would be necessary, first, to show that the establish¬ 
ment of any religion is a matter of conscience or of duty. It is no 
such thing; it is admitted by every one to be a matter of policy and 
of state regulation; some will say of unwise policy, others, and I 
entirely agree with them, of most wise policy. But, wise or unwise, 
it cannot be a matter of conscience or duty, in the members of any 
one religion to make it an established one; still less can it be a mat¬ 
ter of conscience or duty in the members of any one religion to over¬ 
throw the existing establishment of any other religion. 

But, my lords, the question is not truly put. I will not take upon 
me to say, whether, if the question were put abstractedly to a Roman 
Catholic, does he prefer a Protestant or a Roman Catholic establish- 
jinent, he would not answer that he would prefer the latter. The 
Roman Catholic can have no particular fondness for the Protestant 
establishment as such, or so as to give it a preference to all others; 
but the question which an honest and rational Roman Catholic has 
to ask himself is totally different; he says, here I see the Protestant 
establishment subsisting in these countries for three hundred years. 


400 


plunket’s speeches. 


I see it embedded in the state, and all its institutions, that it could 
not be overturned without the subversion of the state itself, and along 
with it, of all the privileges, and rights, and liberties which I enjoy, 
and expect to transmit to my posterity under it; and therefore I 
have no hesitation in preferring a Protestant establishment accompanied 
by all these enjoyments and blessings, to the wild projects of seeking 
for a Roman Catholic establishment, at the risk of forfeiting them all 
—at the risk, do I say ? no, but with the certainty. 

My lords, every Roman Catholic well knows that the Protestant 
establishment of Ireland is indissolubly wound up with the establish¬ 
ment of England, and that neither the church of England nor the 
government of England will ever permit the Protestant church of Ire¬ 
land to be subverted. My lords, I take upon myself to say, that 
such extravagant notions, which could not be accomplished without 
heaving the British empire from its centre, do not enter into the con¬ 
templation either of priests or laymen of that persuasion. 

So much, my lords, for the supposed principle of hostility. Let 
me now offer a few words as to the means of effectually acting upon 
it. The apprehension rests upon the supposition that such members 
of the Roman Catholics as will be admitted, that they will be enabled 
to sway the majority of both houses of parliament, for the purpose 
of overturning or essentially injuring the Protestant establishment; 
that a constituency, of which the great majority is Protestant, will 
elect a number of Roman Catholic representatives, sufficient to effect 
this purpose, in the House of Commons; that a Protestant king will 
raise to the peerage a number of Roman Catholics, sufficient to effect 
the same purpose in this house; that a Protestant king, bound by 
his solemn duty and interest to protect his own religion, and that of 
the state and its establishment, will join in this conspiracy. If this 
apprehension refers to the representation from England, do they 
really fear that the Protestants of England will become parties to 
this league against their religion ? If to Ireland, is it to be sup¬ 
posed that any Roman Catholics returned after the passing of this 
bill, would be more devoted to the interests of the Roman Catholics 
than the Protestant members now returned by a Roman Catholic 
constituency. I cannot bring myself to believe that such apprehen¬ 
sions are seriously entertained. Do they forget the bill of rights, 
the corner-stone of our constitution, which has made one branch ot 
the legislature essentially, and unalterably, and exclusively Protes¬ 
tant ; giving thereby a perfect and absolute security against even the 
possibility of any legislative measure subversive of the Protestant 
religion and establishments ? Do they forget that the fountain oi 


CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL. 


401 


all executive power in these countries is essentially, unalterably, and 
exclusively Protestant, affording thereby a perfect security, that no 
person shall be appointed to any office under the crown, of whose 
loyalty and determination to support the Protestant institutions that 
exclusively Protestant king shall not be entirely and conscientiously 
satisfied ? But above all, my lords, let it be recollected, that all these 
exclusive powers of protection are exercised in the face of open day 
under the control of enlightened public opinion, and subject to the 
jealous criticism of the Protestant people of thjs country, possessing 
the fullest information of everything which passes within these walls, 
aud of all the acts of all our public functionaries. 

• I would then, my lords, request them to look at the petitions which 
have been laid on your table ; petitions, I admit, of little value, when 
you consider them as arguments, but of incalculable value as convey¬ 
ing the clear expression of the devoted attachment of the people of 
England to the Protestant religion and to the Protestant church. My 
lords, in that sentiment I find the true and unconquerable security 
of the Protestant religion. If, my lords, the wild and extravagant 
dream of such a nefarious confederation of King, Lords, and Com¬ 
mons were to be realized, and were even the right reverend bench to 
become parties to such an act of suicide, must they not be controlled 
and overwhelmed by the indignation of the Protestant people of this 
country ? These, my lords, are fancies on which no rational man would 
place the difference of a day’s purchase in dealing for his estate ; 
they are suppositions transcending the limits of moral possibility, and 
on which no sober mind can rest, as a motive for action in this great 
concern. My lords, I own it does affect me with astonishment unspeak¬ 
able, that acute and reasoning minds can be so sensitive to these possibi¬ 
lities of theoretical and distant, and consequential dangers, and that they 
can rest at ease under, and pray for a continuance of, the immediate and 
direct, and practical dangers in which they are at this moment placed. 
In what does the real danger consist ? In this, my lords, that the 
Protestant hierarchy in Ireland rests on a very narrow basis, on a 
very small proportion indeed of the population of the country. Where 
is our safety to be found ? In the interest which the great body of 
the population feel in the state, and in its laws. Millions of people 
desire admission to the privileges of citizens, from which the argu¬ 
ment I have now to deal with admits they ought not to be excluded 
on mere political grounds. They do not seek to meddle with any of 
the rights or possessions of the church, and they offer to bind them¬ 
selves by solemn oaths, not to use their privileges for the purpose of 
doing so directly or indirectly. No ; the heads of the church say, 


402 


plunket’s speeches. 


these privileges which you seek, are incompatible with the existence 
of the church. You have not done anything hostile to us; you do 
not purpose to do anything hostile to us; you offer to swear that 
you will not do anything hostile to us ; we know you to be very wor¬ 
thy and honest people, but on certain maxims which we have laid 
down, we will not believe either your oaths or your actions; and we 
frankly tell you, that as long as our establishment continues, you 
never shall obtain your political privileges. Are these, my lords, 
safeguards for the church ? Where millions of our fellow-subjects 
are indissolubly united in pursuit of rights, as sacred as any institu¬ 
tions in the state, when the throne and the great body of the wealth 
and intelligence of the Protestants of Ireland are not opposed to 
them, is it for the clergy of the Established church to say, we put 
ourselves in the breach, the only obstruction to your march, and you 
never shall obtain your object until you put down our establishment. 
My lords, this is a fearful alternative to hold out to the Roman Ca¬ 
tholics ; but it is very wise on the part of the church, to tell the 
Protestant proprietors there can be no tranquillity for your country, 
you shall not be relieved from the apprehension of civil war; British 
capital shall not flow into your country, to raise the value of your 
estates, and to give employment to your people, so long as the Pro¬ 
testant establishment exists. 

My lords, I do address myself most earnestly to the right reverend 
bench, most particularly, my lords, to the right reverend prelate who 
is at the head of the Church of Ireland, whose opinions I know and 
lamentare so different from mine on this great question,but whom I can¬ 
not address without the expressions of respect and esteem to which his 
unpretending good sense, and mild and dignified and conciliatory dis¬ 
charge of the duties of his high station so justly entitle him. My 
lords, it has been said, that the Roman Catholic religion remains un¬ 
changed, and that they hold opinions of exclusive salvation, which 
disable them from living in charity with others. My lords, harsh and 
exclusive doctrines may be found in almost all creeds, and amongst 
angry theologians, but such, my lords, are not the doctrines of our 
Roman Catholic fellow-subjects; nor can anything be more unlike 
to another, than the Roman Catholics of the present day to the Pa¬ 
pist of the days of Queen Mary. My lords, no person of any church 
can be so wicked or senseless as to hold or to act upon the opinion, 
that his fellow-creature is doomed to eternal punishment by a mer¬ 
ciful God, because he differs from himself in speculative opinions! 
The materials of truth and nature extinguish such monstrous folly 
and impiety. 



CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL. 


403 


My lords, I will not at this hour dwell on the most extraordinary 
arguments that have been founded on the most extravagant suppo¬ 
sitions—that the whole parliament may be Papists—that all the 
king’s ministers may be Papists—and then what is to become of the 
Protestant religion and constitution. I cannot well imagine how 
these things can happen, unless all the people should become Papists, 
and then, indeed, it must be owned, the Protestant establishment 
would be in some danger, and from which it would not find effectual 
protection in any act of parliament. So it is said, what if we have 
an hypocritical king, an hypocritical minister, or cabinet of ministers ? 
My lords, it is impossible to deal with such fancies. I know of no 
law which can control hypocrisy—our present laws do not profess to 
do so, nor can the measure now proposed expose us to any additional 
danger in that respect. 

My lords, I have to congratulate your lordships on the altered 
tone which is now assumed with respect to the fundamental princi¬ 
ples of the Reformation and the Revolution, which it was so confi¬ 
dently asserted the present measure would subvert. I think I may 
safely appeal to your lordships, whether the professions so repeatedly 
made by the noble and learned lord, that he would, at the proper 
time, demonstrate for the satisfaction of the people of England, that 
the sacred principles established by the Reformation and the glorious 
Revolution of 1688, would be overturned by the admission of Roman 
Catholics to parliament and to office. These assertions have been in 
every part disproved by the powerful and unanswerable arguments 
of my noble and learned friend on the woolsack, and of my noble 
friend behind me (Earl Grey). These assertions rest now, as they 
did at the time when they were first made, solely upon the authority 
of the noble and learned lord, and he must excuse me if I say they 
have not been supported by any proof. The noble and learned lord 
has, indeed, vehemently asserted his entire belief in those opinions, 
and his determination to live and die in them. I most sincerely 
hope that it may be very long before he affords this last proof of his 
sincerity; but in the meantime, I think the public who had been so 
loudly appealed to, were entitled to, and did expect some arguments 
drawn from our history and our laws, to show that they had not 
been alarmed without grave and sufficient cause. My lords, the con¬ 
vincing and irresistible reasoning of the two noble lords to whom I 
have just alluded, makes it unnecessary for me to go into any minute 
or lengthened consideration of those great constitutional points to 
which they have applied themselves ; a few observations, however, I 
trust, your lordships will permit me to offer. It has been asserted, 



404 


plunket’s speeches. 


that the Roman Catholics were excluded from the House of Com¬ 
mons at the period of the Reformation, and that the oath of supre¬ 
macy was intended to produce that effect. No assertion cpn be more 
unfounded. They were not intended to be so excluded ; they were 
not, in fact, so excluded; and the oath of supremacy had no such 
object. The oath of supremacy was intended as a test of loyalty, 
not of religion; the statute of 5 Eliz., which imposes the oath as a 
preliminary to sitting in the House of Commons, demonstrates that 
it was merely a test of loyalty; it does not impose it as a condition 
for sitting in this house, because it says, the queen was otherwise 
assured of the loyalty of the peers. They accordingly sat without 
interruption until the 30th Charles II. But it was not any part of 
the policy of Queen Elizabeth to exclude Roman Catholics either 
from the House of Commons or from office. She was a sound Pro¬ 
testant, as sound as the noble and learned lord, or as any right reve¬ 
rend person in this house; she had proved her sincerity by adhering 
to her religion at the peril of her life and of her throne. Her policy 
was not to exclude, but to woo and win her Roman Catholic subjects. 
She framed the oath of supremacy, with a view of its being taken by 
them. She altered the liturgy from the form of Edward VI., by 
excluding those passages relative to the real presence, which would 
have made it impossible for the Roman Catholics to join in commu¬ 
nion with the church of England. She restrained the intemperate 
zeal of her ecclesiastics, and forbid the use of offensive expressions 
such as “ Papist” or “ schismatic,” and accordingly this wise policy 
was completely successful; for the first thirteen years of her reign, 
the Roman Catholics did take the oath of supremacy, and did join 
in communion with the church of England, and did serve in her fleets 
and in her armies, and were confidentially employed in the highest 
offices in the state. The noble and learned lord will not, cannot con¬ 
tradict me ; he knows those facts to be true; they rest not in asser¬ 
tion, but on the evidence of the statute book, of the public records, 
of the letters of the queen’s ministers, and on the uncontradicted tes¬ 
timony of lawyers and historians. I will not mar, by recurring to it, 
the eloquent and magnificent statement of the noble earl, of the loyal 
gallantry of Lord Howard of Effingham, leading the fleets of his ex¬ 
communicated Protestant sovereign, against the consecrated banner 
of the Pope. James the First, as Mr. Hume informs us, appointed in¬ 
differently Roman Catholics and Protestants to office. It is undoubt¬ 
edly true, my lords, that the policy of Queen Elizabeth was inter¬ 
rupted and disappointed by political intrigues, set on foot by foreign 
emissaries, and fomented by seminary priests and Jesuits ; but it is 






CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL. 


405 


equally true, that this disappointment arose, not from religious, but 
from political motives. My lords, it is well known, that in the latter 
part of the reign of Charles I., and after the restoration, the Roman 
Catholics became suspected, when the throne became suspected ; cer¬ 
tainly not suspected of disloyalty, but deservedly suspected of adher¬ 
ing to the crown in its designs, first, against the liberties, and latterly, 
against the religion of the people—still they were legally admissible 
to the House of Commons, although the spirit of the times was such, 
that in point of fact, very few were admitted. Still those who got 
admission on taking the oath of supremacy, could not be directly ex¬ 
cluded, and the Protestant leaders were under the necessity of recur¬ 
ring to this device; the laws against recusancy were in force, and 
one of the penalties attaching on conviction, was a disability to come 
within ten miles of London or Westminster. A person under such a 
disability could not perform his duties as a member of the House of 
Commons, and they accordingly proceeded against him for recusancy, 
and then, on producing the record of the conviction, a new writ was 
moved for—all this appears on the journals of the Commons. 

Such, my lords, clearly, was the state of the law as to parliament, 
from the Reformation to the 30th Charles II., and so much for the 
assertion, that Roman Catholics were excluded by the principles of 
the Reformation. Now as to the statute of 30 Charles II., it recites 
the dangers which had arisen from Popish recusants having free ac¬ 
cess to the king, and it contains two enactments; first, that no per¬ 
son shall sit in either house of parliament without taking the oath of 
supremacy and subscribing the declaration; and second, that persons 
refusing to do so shall not have access to the king: and it subjects 
the parties offending to the same penalties (amongst others) which 
attach upon persons convicted as Popish recusants. Such was the 
law. What has become of it ? First, all the laws against recusancy 
have been repealed, there is one member of this immortal law lopped 
off'; and second, the clause which forbid the access of such persons 
to the king, is also repealed; so there is a second member of this im¬ 
mortal law also hacked off, and sent to follow its companion. And 
it is this mutilated part of Titus Oates which we are now called on to 
venerate as the statute of the great King William, and which forms 
the foundation of all our rights, as settled at the glorious period of the 
Revolution. 

My lords, I do not mean to say that this act of Charles II., how¬ 
ever disgraceful the circumstances which accompanied it, was not ne¬ 
cessary, or that the Roman Catholics were not at that time a body 
dangerous to the state, or that there was any intention of repealing 


406 


plunset’s speeches. 


it at the period of the Revolution; on the contrary, many additional 
and severely penal laws were enacted against the Roman Catholics 
immediately before and after the period of the bill of rights; but I 
call for the proof of any intention expressed in the bill of rights, or to 
be inferred from it, that any of those penal laws were to have per¬ 
petual continuance, or were to be considered as incorporated into, or 
forming part of, that glorious transaction. Does the bill of rights 
concern itself with the doctrine of transubstantiation, or the sacrifice 
of the mass, or the invocation of saints ? No, my lords, the wise 
men who were actors in that great event, had no lumber room in 
their heads for such trumpery. They state the various points in 
which the rights of the subject had been invaded—they do not pro¬ 
fess to be systemmongers, or grinders of theories—they give no ab¬ 
stract dogmas on the constitution—even in the statement of the in¬ 
vasion of the right of petitioning they do not state generally the right 
of petitioning, but merely that of petitioning the throne, because that 
was the right which had been invaded in the case of the seven 
bishops ; and then, having distinctly stated the rights which had been 
actually attacked, and insisted on them as their birthright, they pro¬ 
ceed to remedy the great grievance which had been derived from the 
religion of the king being different from that of the state, and for this 
they provide a remedy which they declare to be intended to endure 
for ever, and they declare the crown unalterably Protestant. But 
how, my lords, do they effect this great object ? not by laying down 
any pedantic maxim or abstract dogma, but recurring to those lights 
by which common sense and true philosophy apply the experience 
of the past to the circumstances of the present; they say “ whereas 
it has been found by experience, that it is inconsistent with the 
safety of this Protestant kingdom to be governed by a Popish prince, 
or by any king or queen marrying a Papist, therefore they enact, &c.” 
They call it, it is true, “ this Protestant kingdomand I hear it 
repeatedly asked, “is not this a Protestant kingdom, and a Protestant 
parliament, and a Protestant government ?”—I say yes, and that ours 
is a Protestant parliament and government, exactly in the same sense 
in which it is a Protestant kingdom, that is not exclusively Protest¬ 
ant, but with the great majority of the population, and of the wealth, 
and of the knowledge of the empire Protestant, possessing that cha¬ 
racter of ascendant but not exclusive Protestantism which must 
always belong to it. The position then that there is anything in the 
bill of rights, or in the settlement at the Revolution, directly, or by 
implication, establishing the principle of exclusion, cannot be main¬ 
tained. Does the assertion then mean, that the restrictive laws 


CATHOLio RELIEF BILL. 


407 


which were in force at the time, or which were enacted shortly after 
it, are to be considered as partaking of the same fundamental cha¬ 
racter ? Never was a more untenable proposition uttered. 

I do not mean to take up your lordships’ time by again going over 
the ground which has been so fully occupied by my noble friends, 
but I would beg to call your attention to one or two particular 
statutes. An act was passed in the 1st year of William III., for¬ 
bidding Papists to carry arms; and that being the state of the law 
when the bill of rights was enacted, the grievance stated in the bill 
of rights is, that Protestants have been deprived of arms whilst 
Papists have been allowed to carry them. Now it is worthy of ob¬ 
servation, that this only point in which it might, with any degree of 
plausibility, be contended that the bill of rights contained any prin¬ 
ciple of exclusion against Roman Catholics has been absolutely 
repealed. My lords, the act of 1817, sanctioned by the noble and 
learned lord, by which the necessity of taking the oath and declara¬ 
tion previous to the obtaining commissions in the army has been 
done away, has been fully stated by the noble duke, and by my 
noble and learned friend on the woolsack. I shall therefore only 
make an observation upon it. By the law of 25th Charles II. it was 
not necessary that the oath or declaration should be taken or made 
previous to the obtaining the commission ; this was not thought a 
sufficient security, and therefore expressly for the purpose of curing 
this mischief, the act of 1st William, cap. 8, was passed, making it 
necessary to do those acts previously to obtaining the commission. 
The act, therefore, of the noble and learned lord is a precise repeal 
of the statute of William, and a restoration of the act of 25 th 
Charles II., which the act of William was expressly introduced to 
repeal; and observe, no statement in the act of 1817, that any law 
of King William was in existence or intended to be touched. 

My lords, it would be unpardonable in me to go into any discus¬ 
sion on the acts of union with Scotland and with Ireland ; they have 
been so fully observed upon, and the demonstration of my noble 
friends having been so complete, that the acts of Charles II. were 
not intended to be perpetuated by them; to one document only on 
that subject, I shall beg to call the attention of your lordships. In 
the journals of this house of the 3rd July, 1706, on the bill for se¬ 
curing the church of England, which was afterwards inserted as one 
of the fundamental articles of the Union, there is this entry— 
“ Question put, that it be an instruction to the committee of the. 
whole house, to whom the bill for securing the church of England is 
referred, that there be inserted in the said bill, as a fundamental 


408 


?lunket’s speeches. 


condition of the intended Union, particular express words, declaring 
perpetual and unalterable an act of parliament made in the 25th of 
Charles II., entitled an Act for preventing Dangers which may hap¬ 
pen from Popish Recusants.” It was resolved in the negative. I 
have other entries of a similar character, but I shall not now detain 
your lordships by referring to them. I will merely state, with refer¬ 
ence to observations that have been made on the act for regulating 
the election of the sixteen peers and forty-five members for Scotland, 
and which is declared as valid as if it had been part of the act ot 
Union, that that act is not, like the two acts for securing the churches 
of England and Scotland, made a fundamental part of the Union, but, 
on the contrary, the article of the Union which directs that all future 
elections shall be according to the provisions of that act, is qualified 
by the words, u until the parliament of Great Britain shall otherwise 
direct.” 

My lords, there is only one other topic to which I think it neces¬ 
sary to advert. Many noble lords have said they would be disposed 
to waive their objection to the proposed measure, if they could be¬ 
lieve it would afford a reasonable hope of giving tranquillity to Ire¬ 
land. A noble earl, who always speaks with distinguished ability 
(Lord Mansfield) has applied himself particularly to this considera¬ 
tion. He will excuse me if I say, that he does not appear to me to have 
taken that high view of the subject to which his eminent abilities 
might have led him. He has, I think, overlooked the question— 
“ Ought it to satisfy the Irish people ?” My lords, I do in my con¬ 
science believe that it will satisfy the Irish Roman Catholics, because 
I am sure it ought to satisfy them, and this, my lords, is the true 
question for a statesman. If he is satisfied that he is rendering jus¬ 
tice, he may confidently expect tranquillity. Hitherto the Roman 
Catholics have been engaged in the honourable pursuit of legitimate 
objects; they have been unanimous in that pursuit—the great body 
of the intelligent Protestants in Ireland have gone along with them. 
But if unfortunately they should not be satisfied with obtaining what 
is just and reasonable, or if factious and designing agitators should 
endeavour to rouse them to acts of disturbance of the public tranquil¬ 
lity, our position will be totally altered—the rational portion of their 
own body will not join with them ; the Protestants to a man will be 
united against them; you will no longer have an entire people to 
contend against—turbulent individuals you can punish by the law, 
and if unfortunately the ordinary power of the law should be found 
insufficient, my noble friend may confidently come to parliament and 
call for its co-operation, in arming.* the executive with extraordinary 
powers—by being honest he is enabled to be strong. 


PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 


409 


But, my lords, I will hope for better things; the Roman Catholics 
appear already to be tranquillized even by the announcement of this 
measure. I trust also that now that the association and all its irrita¬ 
tions are at an end, the Brunswick Clubs will disappear. 

My lords, much allowance is to be made for them. They have 
been goaded and irritated; they have been alarmed for their own 
safety. On the part of many of them their association has been 
merely in self-defence—like their adversaries associating for a lawful 
purpose, they have been led into excesses which cannot be justified; 
but I am full of hope they will speedily subside into tranquillity. 
There does not exist in any part of the world a finer race of people 
than the Protestants of the north of Ireland—I speak from personal 
knowledge of many of them—and of large bodies of them—religious, 
sober, industrious, intelligent men. When they come to understand 
the real nature and operation of this measure, I am persuaded, that 
instead of considering themselves as sufferers, they will feel relieved 
from the infliction of the nominal and useless superiority over their 
fellow-subjects, which the impolicy of our laws had imposed on them; 
and I well know, that those amongst your lordships, and in the other 
house of parliament, who have most strenuously opposed this bill, will 
be among the foremost to exert themselves to ensure its beneficial 
operation. 


PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 


March 28, 1831. 

The great seven days debate in the commons commenced on the 1st of March, 
and on the 7th, the English Reform Bill was read for the first time, without a 
division. The second reading was taken on the 21st and carried on the 22nd 
by a majority of 1. The commons then proceeded to discuss the Irish and Scotch 
bills. The lords intensely agitated, on the motion of Lord Wharncliffe, began to 
debate the question without waiting for the decision of the lower house. A dis¬ 
orderly controversy between Lords Sidmouth, Eldon, and Wharncliffe, occupied the 
early nart of the sitting, after which Lord Durham delivered the ministerial de¬ 
clarations. He was followed by the Duke of Richmond and the Marquis of 
.Londonderry, after whom— 

Lord Plunket said, that the question had been argued by so 
many noble lords upon the side of the house upon which he had the 
honour to sit, and they had spoken so stroDgly and so effectually upon 


410 


plunket’s speeches. 


the subject, that it might appear that he rose to add to the triumph 
they had obtained, if he addressed the house at any length at such 
an inconvenient period of the discussion. Under such circumstances 
he should not detain their lordships long, nor should he have taken 
the liberty of offering himself to the notice of the house, if he had not 
felt apprehensive that he might not have the opportunity of expres¬ 
sing his sentiments when the question came regularly before their 
lordships, and he might therefore labour under the imputation of 
shrinking from the duty of declaring his opinions, and of supporting 
the measure. He certainly could not say that he had approached the 
consideration of this momentous question without a very considerable 
degree of alarm, but he must avow that he now felt a very great re¬ 
lief from that alarm, for he found that what was originally stated to 
be an inroad upon the constitution, and a principle pregnant with 
every danger—what was declared to be a measure which ought to be 
met resolutely in the very first outset, as calculated to introduce a 
new system subversive of all constitutional practices—was now no 
longer so formidably denounced, and all such grounds of opposition 
were entirely abandoned. It was at first stated that the measure 
was calculated to introduce a new system; but, after a short time, 
that enunciation was given up. At first it was stated that there was 
no necessity for any reform, and it was now four months since that 
opinion was announced. It had been persevered in to nearly the end 
of a seven days’ discussion, and had never been formally relinquished. 
At the close of that period, with a tardy candour, or he might call it 
a reasonable prudence, it was admitted that all reform was not revo¬ 
lutionary. The principle, then, of reform was no longer knocking at 
the outer door and refused admittance; it had been admitted within 
doors, and its demands, it was allowed, were not altogether unrea¬ 
sonable. Those who did not agree in those demands did not deny 
them altogether—they only wished to avoid prompt payment, and 
asked to pay by instalments. He was at a loss to understand how 
noble lords and honourable and right honourable gentlemen meant to 
meet the question under these circumstances. He had not heard of 
one person who did not agree that reform was just and proper, only 
they quarrelled with the degree and extent of the reform proposed. 
Ihey abstained, nevertheless, from stating how far they were willing 
to go. The noble lord who had introduced the question to their lord- 
ships’ notice with great ability, and, he would add, with great fair¬ 
ness, had employed a tone in discussing the subject, and made ad¬ 
missions which were not calculated to obtain for him the support of 
those noble lords w r ho sat around him, and he had not found a se- 


PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 


411 


ccnder. That noble lord had stated that the claims of the people were 
irresistible, and that some degree of reform was absolutely necessary. 
The noble lord had referred to the opinion of Mr. Canning, but he 
did not think the supposition of what the opinions of dead men might 
be, were they now alive, ought to guide the opinions of living men. 
How could he or any man say, that if Mr. Canning were now alive, 
bis opinion would not be changed like the opinion of the noble lord ? 
and how could he say that Mr. Canning would not now think some 
reform necessary? The noble lord, who was warmly attached to Mr. 
Canning, was as much opposed to reform at one time as Mr. Can¬ 
ning. They ought, therefore, to consider the nature of the question 
before them, aud not endeavour to guess at the opinions of those who 
were not alive to speak for themselves. What then did he find ? 
Why, inat the persons who were lately at the head of the govern¬ 
ment of this country, of whom he wished to speak with great respect, 
particularly of the noble duke who was then at the head of that 
government—he found that these gentlemen—and he did not say it 
as exciting feelings of degradation—he found these gentlemen obliged 
to resign the government, and obliged to resign it because they could 
not resist the pressure of reform. To that pressure the present 
government had acceded; and now their opponents pressed on 
them because they had taken up the principle of reform. Under 
these circumstances, what was to become of the country ? Did the 
persons who, under such circumstances, resisted the plan of reform, 
look at the consequences ? What medium party was to succeed ? 
Did those who resisted reform—the reform proposed by his majesty’s 
ministers, and who acknowledged the necessity of some reform—come 
forward with any plan or principle of their own ? Why did they 
not introduce a bill into the other house, or even into that house, if it 
could be done consistently with the principles of the constitution and the 
laws and usages of parliament ? Those who were of opinion that the 
present plan went too far, should bring in a bill of their own, aud 
should let the two lie side by side, aud thus the public would be able 
to form some judgment of the comparative merit of the two measures. 
Was this fair and honourable course adopted? Was it expected that 
liis noble friends, and the distinguished persons who originated this plan 
of reform, could stoop and degrade themselves so low as to belie their 
principles, and abandon the measure ? His noble friendshad been accused 
of endeavouring to excite in the people of the country discontent with 
the government, and at all our institutions. But he would ask all those 
who had made use of such language, were the grievances of the coun¬ 
try any secret, or were the sources of those, grievances so concealed 


412 


plunket’s speeches. 


that a veil could be drawn oyer them to hide them from the public 
odium ? He would maintain that his noble friends had not excited 
the people of England; but, on the contrary, by bringing forward 
this great and satisfactory measure, they had done much to quiet the 
people, by meeting the general sentiments, and by removing the per¬ 
manent and just sources of discontent. If his noble friends should 
abandon their plan, they would cover themselves with irretrievable 
disgrace, and they would bequeath a most bitter legacy to those who 
came after them, by teaching the people that no confidence whatever 
was to be placed in any set of public men. There would then be no 
means left of governing the country, and it would be plunged in all 
the horrors of anarchy. He therefore felt himself much relieved from 
the embarrassment of making a choice. He was compelled to em¬ 
brace the plan of reform. His noble friends had come into power on 
account of the evils which oppressed the country, and the danger 
arising from the conviction of those evils upon the public mind. They 
had found the people excited. The storm was growing, the surges 
were lashing, the vessel was heavy laden and labouring in the troubled 
waters, and the helm had been abandoned by those who had been 
placed at it, and whose duty it was to have steered with skill and 
science. His friend it was, who had seized upon the helm, and who 
with mature experience had said, “ I will undertake what they won’t 
undertake; I will meet the danger, and with a firm hand I will point 
out to you the haven to which your course ought to be steered.” Every 
honest man in the country was bound to assist in this great effort, 
upon the success of which depended the safety of the state. His no¬ 
ble friend was calling upon them not to proceed through unexplored 
latitudes, and upon devious courses, but to steer cautiously, but boldly, 
to the only port that was capable of affording protection and safety. 
He (Lord Plunket) was not inclined to trouble their lordships at any 
great length at that hour of the night, and under the circumstances 
of the question, but he must address a few more observations to their 
lordships before he sat down. The reform bill had been termed a 
revolutionary measure. The term revolutionary was the most ridicu¬ 
lous, the most dishonourable, and the most offensive that it had ever 
been his unfortunate lot to hear in any public assembly. It was true 
that this charge had been abandoned in all the mortification of de¬ 
feated artifice, and in all the shame of detected folly; but still it was 
said, that if the measure was not actually revolutionary, it was what 
was almost as dangerous—it was a great and an extensive change. 
Did any noble lord who heard him, and who was in the least ac¬ 
quainted with the history of his country, believe that great political 


PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 


413 


changes were either unusual, unconstitutional, or bad ? Did they not 
ewe, and was not every stage of society indebted for, all they pos¬ 
sessed to some great change from what had been precedent ? He 
had not been an inattentive observer of the progress of society, and 
the nature of his studies had pretty well acquainted him with the his¬ 
tory of this country ; and the page of history showed nothing more 
clearly than that from the beginning of its political existence there 
had been a continued course of changes, when the circumstances of 
the country required changes to be adopted. He found the people 
of England at all times clinging to one great principle; the polar star 
which guided them at all times—at least through a period of 1000 
years, during which the constitution had been preserved—-was the 
principle, that it was the people’s birthright that the freedom of their 
persons and the enjoyment of their property was not to be injured or 
affected but by their own consent. They had at all times given effect 
to that great principle. That was the basis of their free govern¬ 
ment, and that principle all the rules and regulations, which were the 
offspring of times and circumstances, were intended to carry into 
effect. They never had the folly to say that this great principle 
should bend to rules and regulations, but they always adapted their 
rules and regulations to this principle. Nothing could be more re¬ 
volutionary in relation to this great principle than to adopt some 
stickfast resolution, which would prevent this principle from being at 
all times acted on. Looking at facts, did not our history abound 
with great changes ? Was not the Reformation, which altered all 
the property of the church, a great change—a salutary change in¬ 
deed, but a great change ? Was not the act of Henry VI, by which 
the great body of the freeholders was excluded from the privilege of 
voting, and the franchise conferred on those who held a freehold of 
40s., a great change ? What did their lordships say to the Union 
with Scotland, which altered the whole parliamentary constitution of 
the country? or what did they say to the Union with Ireland? 
Were not these great and extensive changes ? He could enumerate 
many more changes, but he would content himself with adverting to 
that last and great change which admitted the Catholics into the 
bosom of the state. These were all great and rapid changes. What 
would their lordships say to the king’s power and prerogative to issue 
writs for new places ? That was a permanent machinery for perpe* 
tual change. That power had been, perhaps, unduly exercised, and 
there had resulted a great abuse; and were they not to exercise the 
prerogative of parliament, and get rid of that abuse ? Persons vrht 
did not see these things mu3£ explore history, not with the eyes of 

2 D 


414 


pliinket’s speeches. 


statesmen or of philosophers, but merely with the curiosity of anti¬ 
quaries. They did not look at the great lesson which history afforded, 
but they stereotyped it, or, like antiquaries with coins, they did not 
care for the legend inscribed on them—they valued them for the rust. 

Great and most important changes had taken place in England 
since the Revolution of 1688. The rapid and astonishing influx of 
wealth had absolutely changed the whole state of the middle classes 
of society. Those middle classes now consisted of persons well ac¬ 
quainted with every useful branch of art and science; they were fully 
capable of forming enlightened views and sound principles upon all 
political and moral questions, and upon all points connected with the 
state. This class of persons had been raised in England into aston¬ 
ishing power, and they now came forward and demanded a reform 
with an irresistible pressure. Parliament had to choose between two 
alternatives. Would they oppose their present institutions, enfeebled 
as they were by abuses and tottering with corruption, so often and 
so ably pointed out and exposed, to stand the shock of these great 
rushes of public opinion, or would they receive these people, the 
middle classes, into the pale of the constitution, and by giving them 
their due share in the representation, claim them as friends and allies, 
instead of opposing them as aliens and enemies ? The spread of in¬ 
telligence among the lower orders, and even amongst the middling 
classes, was considered by many to be dangerous to the state. 
Widely different were his opinions upon the subject: but he would 
only say, that whether it were or were not dangerous, certain it was 
that there were no means of stopping it. He did not consider the 
diffusion of knowledge to be dangerous to society, but the most fatal 
proofs existed of the inconvenience and dangers arising from a popu¬ 
lation in a state of ignorance. The spread of imperfect light might 
be attended with danger; but it was a danger to be removed only 
by a diffusion of more perfect information. Purify the institutions 
of the country, and no safety-lamps would be required. It had been 
eaid, in terms of exultation, that the constitution of England was an 
admirable constitution—that it worked well—that it produced the 
most perfect moral and intellectual state of a population, and it was 
the glory and happiness of the country, and the envy of all foreign 
nations. He would avow, with the greatest satisfaction, that he did 
not believe, with all its defects, that there could be found, in the 
page of either ancient or modern history, a single constitution that 
had worked so well even for the good of the people. He would ac¬ 
knowledge with pride and satisfaction, that the constitution of Eng¬ 
land was the envy of all less favoured nations. All this was perfectly 




PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 


415 


true. He believed that every civilized nation admired in the English 
constitution the bill of rights, the institution of the jury, the Habea 
Corpus act, the independence of the judges, and the impartial admi¬ 
nistration of the laws by judges who were independent of the influence 
of the crown, and lastly, the theory of our representative legisla¬ 
ture. Having acknowledged all this, he would now only beg leave 
to ask, who among these foreign admirers of the British constitution 
ever fell in love with the corporation of Old Sarum, or was enamoured 
of the free representation of Gatton ? Who would say that the British 
constitution had ever been admired, out of England at least, because 
there existed the practice of trafficking in boroughs, and the privilege 
of buying and selling the rights of the people ? These were not the 
subjects of admiration with anybody—they were plague-spots to be 
purified, or vices to be held in execration. If the constitution worked 
well, it was not from the variety of its abuses, or the number of its 
deformities, but in spite of them. Remove these, and they would re¬ 
store it to its proper form and vigour. How did the constitution work 
well ? Although the system of borough corruption was acknowledged 
to be a gross abuse, a hideous deformity and vice, still was it repeated 
that many distinguished persons who possessed boroughs were people 
of virtue, and who disdained to use their privileges, or to prostitute 
their possessions to bad purposes. Many persons in whom these bo¬ 
rough properties were vested did not act upon the same views, and 
therefore some sat upon one side of the house, and some upon the 
other. These things happened very frequently, but was the British 
constitution to be for ever dependent upon such accidents ? Let them, 
as soon as they could, take away accidents and introduce a system of 
securities. The physical system of the human body presented a beau¬ 
tiful economy of nature, and worked well; and if any accident occurred, 
such as an injury to a blood-vessel, nature accommodated herself to the 
change, and some substitute of organ or of function was produced. 
But when nature resumed her power, she dispelled all substitutes. 
The well-working of the political constitution of England was the 
growth of happy accidents and lucky chances; but these would be 
dispelled when sound and enlarged principles were resumed. His 
only object in getting up in his seat that night was, to explain him¬ 
self upon this great measure of reform, and he apologized for having 
detained their lordships so long. 


416 


plunket’s speeches. 




PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 

October 6, 1831. 

According to Mr. Roebuck, the Reform Bill was carried by ft coup d'etat— 
struck by Lord Brougham and Earl Grey. History will, however, probably as¬ 
cribe the violent, almost unconstitutional momentum, given to that measure in 
its passage through parliament, rather to the democratic energy and dashing 
courage of the chancellor, than to the serene and stately patriotism of the pre¬ 
mier. On the 18 th of April—in a parliament six months old—ministers were 
defeated by a majority of eight in committee on the bill for England. After 
four days deliberation, they determined to dissolve; and on the instant Brougham 
ordered the crown and robes, the great officers of state, and the guards to ac¬ 
company the king to the house. Then, and not until then, the premier and 
chancellor waited upon his majesty, and called upon him to carry out the reso¬ 
lution of his ministers—Brougham managing the whole proceeding. The king 
at first declined—asked how could he dissolve a parliament which had just given 
himself so good a civil list, and settled so handsome an annuity on his wife. 
The chancellor admitted it was very hard to annoy so good-natured a House of 
Commons, but the king’s government could not be carried on with them, and 
without ceremony they must go to the country that very day. The king tried 
to temporize. How could parliament be dissolved without the regular parapher¬ 
nalia, robes, heralds, and army. When he was told that all had been ordered 
without consulting him, he flamed and charged the chancellor with having com¬ 
mitted high treason. Brougham answered with exquisite intrepidity, that he 
was perfectly well aware he had, and was ready to take the consequences; but 
first of all, the safety of the State demanded that parliament should be dissolved. 
To the sang froid of this declaration, the bluff sailor-king could find no angry 
answer. He agreed to dissolve, and a general election took place under the aus¬ 
pices of the Times Newspaper. “Plaster the enemies of the people with mud 
and duck them in horseponds,” said that absolute organ of the Vox Populi Brit - 
tanicci. A Radical parliament, elected amid revolutionary riots, carried the whole 
Bill to the upper house by majorities wonderful in an era of close boroughs. In 
the debate on the second reading, Plunket spoke the following ill-reported speech, 
of which Brougham has recorded his intense admiration. The debate was one 
of wonderful brilliancy, and Plunket rose in reply to an exceedingly able attack 
by Lord Carnarvon upon the whole conduct of the measure by ministers. 

Lord Plunket said, that he was induced to obtrude himself on 
the attention of the house, with the view of attempting a reply to the 
very able and powerful speech of the noble earl who had just addressed 
the house. He should in some respects differ from the course taken by 
the noble earl, for he would attempt to argue the principle of the bill. 
With every respect to the noble earl, and paying the full tribute of 
admiration to the talents which he had displayed, he must assert, and 
before he sat down the house would be able to judge whether he was 
justified in making the assertion, that he had left the principle of the 
bill untouched. The noble earl said, that he had reluctantly entered 
into a discussion in which he was opposed to those for whom he pro¬ 
fessed strong esteem and regard. The noble earl had also stated, 
that he had listened to the arguments in favour of the bill, with a 


PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 


417 


strong desire to be convinced by them. Had it not been for these 
direct assertions of the noble earl, which he was bound to believe, an<k 
did believe, he should have supposed, from the tone of severity and 
the strain of sarcasm which pervaded his speech from the beginning 
to the end, that the noble earl’s reluctance was not so very strong as 
he had led the house to imagine that it was, and that something more 
than a logical difference on the subject had dictated the noble earl’s 
observations. He really could not recollect one objection which the 
noble earl had made to the principle of the bill. The noble earl had 
said, that ministers were building a new constitution. He had also 
said, that the bill, if carried, was one which would render it impossi¬ 
ble for his majesty’s government to be carried on. These were posi¬ 
tions which the noble earl had adopted and not laid down himself for 
the first time. They had been reiterated from the commencement of 
the discussion up to that moment; and now that the noble earl had 
ceased to speak, they remained as they did before he began to speak, 
resting only on mere assertion. It had been stated of this measure, 
which had been brought forward by ministers, and sent up to their 
lordships backed by the authority of the other house of parliament, 
that it was founded on fanciful theories, that the grievances which 
were complained of were ideal, and that the bill would destroy a system 
which was working well for all purposes of public utility, and endanger 
the constitution of the country. To every one of those assertions he 
would take upon himself to give a positive denial. He would not rest 
on his mere denial, but would state further, that the theory which was 
opposed to the bill was improper, and at direct variance with the an¬ 
cient established and acknowledged principles of the constitution. 
The persons who complained of injustice being done to them, were 
themselves the usurpers of the power of the realm. He believed that 
the rejection of this remedial constitutional measure, which had been 
sent up to their lordships from the Commons of England, would be 
attended with dangers not imaginary, remote or trivial, but imme¬ 
diate, vital, and overwhelming. All considerations personal to him¬ 
self were lost in the deep and anxious alarm which he felt upon this sub¬ 
ject. There had been a degree of personal rancour accompanying tha 
attacks which had been made upon the bill and its authors, which 
proved that something more than apprehension for the constitution 
influenced the opposition to the measure. Assertions and attacks, 
such as he alluded to, must not rest upon the authority of those 
who made them, or on the pertinacity and perseverance with which 
they were reiterated. They must be tried by the test of reason 
and argument. There was one circumstance to which he could 


418 


plunket’s speeches. 


advert with some degree of pleasure—namely, that the tone ori¬ 
ginally assumed by the opponents of the bill had been abandoned. 
He could not avoid observing, that the opposition to this measure 
had descended from that high tone which it had assumed at the 
commencement; and he found that this measure of parliamentary 
reform, which had been at first encountered as an audacious mea¬ 
sure of corporation robbery, and as directly tending to overturn the 
state, was now met by an admission from every person who had 
spoken from the other side of the house, with one single exception, 
that reform, and in some considerable degree, too, was necessary 
[“wo, wo”]. He certainly thought, that the only person who had 
denied that reform was necessary was a noble earl opposite (the 
Earl of Mansfield) [“ wo, wo”]. The noble earl was the only person, 
of all who had spoken on the subject, that entertained such an opi¬ 
nion [“wo, wo”]. It was, of course, impossible for him to conjecture 
what was passing in the minds of noble lords opposite, but among 
the persons who had taken part in the present debate, or spoken on 
the presentation of petitions, the noble earl was the only person who 
had avowed himself the uncompromising foe to any kind of reform 
whatever. The noble earl to whom he alluded, and of whom he 
wished to speak with the greatest respect for his talents, had cer¬ 
tainly taken a very whimsical course in establishing his position 
against all reform, and against this specific measure in particular; 
for, after joining in the general cry of its tendency to overturn the 
monarchy, and all the institutions of the state, he proceeded further, 
and said, that the present measure would have the effect of estab¬ 
lishing the ministers in their places, and that by reform of parliament 
they would be enabled to carry on all their injurious measures against 
the interests of the country. The first use, said the noble earl, which 
ministers would make of their new power, would be to go to war 
with Portugal; and the next step to be taken by ministers was to 
commit the equal outrage—as he believed it would appear in the 
estimation of some noble lords—of not going to war with France. 
Then the ministers would proceed to put an end to all the rights of 
primogeniture, of hereditary property, and, in short, to adopt ever) 
one of those measures which were perpetrated in the wildest days ol 
disturbance and folly that ever afflicted the French nation. This 
really appeared to him to be a sweeping course of objection, and 
>ne which he was not quite prepared to follow. He was only pre¬ 
pared to argue this measure of reform on its own grounds and prin¬ 
ciples. With the exception of the noble earl, all the noble lords who 
had spoken on the other side of the house, had declared themselves 


PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 


419 


friendly in some degree to parliamentary reform [“ no, no,” from Lord 
Falmouth]- He really thought that the noble lord had, in part of the 
speech which he had delivered that night, expressed himself in favout 
of some kind of reform; but he found that he was mistaken, and he 
certainly had no wish to fix on the noble lord so odious an imputation. 

An explanatory interruption here took place on the part of Lord Falmouth, 
and almost immediately a discussion followed, as to the reasons for the resigna¬ 
tion of the late ministry, in the course of which the Duke of Wellington twice 
rose to explain ; Plunket continuing to comment upon a descrepancy which he 
had detected between the statement of the Duke on the subject and that of Sir 
Robert Peel. 

It appeared to him that a studied mode of expression was adopted 
by the right honourable baronet (Sir R. Peel); for he said, that 
the late cabinet were not then prepared with a measure of parlia¬ 
mentary reform, the ministers, under those circumstances, having 
been defeated on the question of the civil list, and apprehending what 
might be the result of meeting the House of Commons on the ques¬ 
tion of reform, did not choose to encounter the event. Their lord- 
ships would observe, that the right honourable baronet said, “ that the 
cabinet were not prepared with a measure of reformwhile the noble 
duke said, “they were not only not prepared with a measure, but 
that as long as he formed part of his majesty’s cabinet, he should feel 
it his duty to oppose any proposition for reform.” The result of this 
Avas, that the late administration was broken up under the impression 
that in the circumstances in which they were placed, they were not 
able to meet- the question of parliamentary reform in the House of 
Commons. This was the inference which he drew from the declara¬ 
tions made by the late ministers, and he thought it a very important 
one. Upon the dissolution of the late government, the present ad¬ 
ministration came into office, avowedly on the principle that some 
measure of parliamentary reform was absolutely necessary; and that 
the government of the country could not go on without it. This was 
all he wanted to establish. The noble duke and his colleagues unani¬ 
mously resigned office, because they could not meet parliament, in the 
then state of feeling on the subject of parliamentary reform. The 
head of the government Avas determined to oppose all reform as long 
as he continued in the cabinet, but his right honourable colleague only 
said, that he was not prepared with a measure of reform. They both, 
however, resigned, and it did not appear that any measure of re¬ 
form, of however modified a nature, had been suggested to their sove¬ 
reign, in the possession of whose confidence they at that time stood. 
Therefore, he had a right to say, that their retirement from office, 
and the coming in of their successors, were connected with the ques 


42C 


plunket’s speeches. 


tion of parliamentary reform. Was it any ground of attack on his 
noble friend at the head of the government, that when called upon 
by his sovereign—whom his former servants, he would not say had 
abandoned, but had declared their inability to serve any longer, to 
form a government—he did not refuse to obey that call, and did un¬ 
dertake to carry on in that difficult crisis the public business of the 
state, on the known and avowed principles on which he had been in 
the habit of acting ? His noble friend had, in the first instance, 
explained the principles on which he accepted office, and amongst 
them were, the principles of economy, of non-interference, and, pri¬ 
marily and particularly, of parliamentary reform. In consequence ot 
the declarations made by the noble earl, a measure of reform was 
introduced to the consideration of the late parliament. The noble 
lord who had just sat down had said, with respect to parliamentary 
reform, “ that the breeze had been fanned into a hurricane by the 
noble earl,” from whom he was so unwilling to differ. Did the 
noble lord conceive that the noble duke opposite was likely to be 
moved by such a breeze ? He rather inferred from the change of 
government, that the breeze had previously assumed the character 
of a hurricane, and if his noble friend, now at the head of affairs, in 
endeavouring to allay the hurricane, rode on the whirlwind, he could 
not be said to be directed by the storm. A measure of reform, the 
same in substance and for efficiency of purpose as the one now before 
their lordships, was introduced into the late House of Commons. It 
was there canvassed in all its parts by friends and enemies ; it un¬ 
derwent a most severe scrutiny, and the principle was adopted by 
what he could not call a very large majority, for it was carried by a 
majority of one only. His majesty’s ministers afterwards, finding 
that they were about to be baffled, took his majesty’s pleasure upon 
the subject, whether, for the purpose of ascertaining the sense of the 
people, not with respect to that particular measure (but still it so 
happened that that measure was in the singular position which he had 
stated), the parliament should not be dissolved. The people, thus 
appealed to, expressed their opinions with a degree of assent amount¬ 
ing almost to unanimity, and though the entire subject of parlia¬ 
mentary reform had been opened, their opinions applied to that par¬ 
ticular measure which had been so rigidly canvassed in parliament, 
and they exercised their suffrages so directly in reference to that 
measure, that their representatives had been termed delegates. He 
appealed to those noble lords wiio recollected what had passed in the 
country, whether they ever recollected elections to have been con¬ 
ducted with a greater degree of order and regularity ? With respect 


PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 


421 


to Ireland, he was sorry to say, it was difficult to mention at random 
any period of the history of that country, during which a state of 
perfect tranquillity might be found; but still there had been no dis¬ 
turbance there since the dissolution, connected with the elections 
The same thing might be said with respect to England. He men 
tioned this circumstance, because attacks had been made in connec¬ 
tion with this measure of reform, not merely on the government, but 
also on the people of the country, who had been accused of unfitness 
to form the basis of free representation. The elections having been 
conducted with such tranquillity and propriety, the discussions in the 
House of Commons having been conducted, on the part of those who 
introduced this bill, with as much deliberation as any debate in the 
history of parliament, and the bill having passed, after some amend¬ 
ments, by an overwhelming majority, it certainly did surprise him to 
hear a noble baron (Lord Wharncliffe) take upon himself to say, that 
after this specific measure had been submitted to parliament, and the 
opinion of the people taken on it, when petitions were presented de¬ 
claring their approbation of this measure, those petitions only meant 
to convey approval of reform generally. On what authority the 
noble baron made such a statement he did not know; but he was 
sure that if the petitions referred to any measure, it could be no 
other than the one before the house. This measure having been 
brought forward under the sanction of government, and under the 
sanction of his majesty, as implied in his authorising the government 
to propose it, and having passed through the House of Commons, 
certainly was entitled to be treated with a great degree of courtesy 
by their lordships. He did admit that their lordships were fully 
entitled to canvass the measure in all its parts, freely and fearlessly, 
in the exercise of their duty. But although their lordships were in 
the exercise of their undoubted privilege in the present circum¬ 
stances, they were to recollect that they were sitting in judgment on 
the people of England, and on a subject peculiarly—and so far as 
any subject that could come before their lordships couldj be, exclu¬ 
sively—relating to the privileges of the other house of parliament. 
He, therefore, could not too anxiously implore their lordships to con¬ 
sider well, before they adopted the desperate experiment of rejecting 
this measure, what were the consequences which might result from 
that rejection. He was satified their lordships would think, that 
whatever might be the ultimate fate of the measure, it was entitled 
to receive the most respectful attention of the house. A good deal 
of sarcasm had been thrown out in that place against the people 
o f England. He again said, that there had been some smart 


422 


plunket’s speeches. 


sarcasms and polished epigrams thrown out against the people of 
England; the noble lord opposite had got up a great deal of 
pointed irony and polished epigram, though he had omitted to touch 
any real part of the subject, at the expense of the people of England. 
But he (Lord Plunket) would say, that that people, whose petitions 
had been sent up in such numbers to their lordships, and whose rights 
were involved in this question, were no light, giddy, and fantastic 
multitude—no rabble labouring under a temporary delusion, but a 
great nation, intelligent, moral, instructed, wealthy—a nation as much 
entitled to respect, and with as many claims to favourable considera¬ 
tion, as any nation in ancient or modern times. Therefore when 
noble lords attacked this measure, and said that if it was carried, it 
would give the people of England the means of overthrowing the 
throne and the church, and abolishing all our venerable institutions, 
he would ask those noble lords, if such were the effects to be appre¬ 
hended from the measure if it were carried, what would be the effects 
if it were not canned ? But he affirmed that the charge was totally 
untrue. The people of England had no such objects. They were 
too sensible to indulge any such rash schemes. But if our institu¬ 
tions were such that they could not be sustained without repressing 
the just complaints of the people, why, he w r ould say, they were not 
worth the tax we paid for them. But he again said, that the charge 
was a libel upon the people of England; it was an attack upon the 
character of the country, which was as dangerous as it was untrue. 
Then the matter for their lordships’ consideration w T as, whether they had 
reason to think that this was a mere popular burst, which would soon 
die away, and that all would become calm again in (as a noble lord 
said the other night) about two years ; that they were consulting the 
interest, and the tranquillity, and the safety of the country by reject¬ 
ing this measure; that the Commons house of parliament, which had 
passed this bill by a large majority, Tvas ready to recede from the 
measure, and that the people of England were disposed to abandon 
it. -If their lordships rejected the measure, and they got locked in 
the wheels of the other house of parliament, so that they could not 
go on, what would be the consequence ? The noble lord had said 
that the only consideration for their lordships was, whether this was 
or was not a right measure, and that they were not to look at conse¬ 
quences. This was a doctrine almost too monstrous, he should have 
thought, for a sane man. If the wheels of the government w^ere to 
be stopped in the way he had mentioned, how could the government 
go ou ? The noble baron did not argue the principle of the measure, 
he went into the details, and contended that the inconveniences 



PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 


423 


of the measure being certain, their lordships were bound to shut their 
eves against the consequences of rejecting it, and to stand secure 
amidst the wreck of elements— 

“ Should nature’s frame in ruins fall, 

And Chaos o’er the sinking ball 
Resume primeval sway, 

His courage chance and fate defies, 

Nor feels the wreck of earth and skies 
Obstruct his destined way.” 

Those lines of the poet exactly described the feelings and conduct of 
the noble lord. But he (Lord Plunket) would affirm, that they 
were bound to consider consequences ; and he would call the attention 
of their lordships to what the consequences would be if they rejected 
this bill, under circumstances which would prevent the introduction 
of a measure of equal efficacy. Where, he would ask their lordships, 
were they to look for strength, on the dissolution of the present govern^ 
ment ? The noble duke opposite was one of the first persons to 
whom the eyes of the public would be directed in such a case. It 
was with reference to this that he had been so particular in endea¬ 
vouring to ascertain the exact words used by the noble duke on a 
certain occasion. But if the noble duke was then unable to go on 
with the government of the country, because at that period he had 
lost the confidence of the House of Commons, and was apprehensive 
of what might be the result of that loss of confidence, did the noble 
duke conceive that he was now restored to the confidence of the 
House of Commons, and that he had a better chance now than before 
of parrying the question of reform ? He (Lord Plunket) did not 
think so; and great as might be the misfortune to the country, that 
the noble duke should be prevented from carrying on the business of 
the country, he did not conceive how the noble duke could join other 
members of his own party who had declared for partial reform. As 
to the noble earl (the Earl of Carnarvon), the noble duke could not 
calculate on him, because he had not got into the kitchen. He 
would ask their lordships whether they seriously thought there was 
any chance of safety to the country if this measure were rejected ? 
When noble lords made violent appeals, and called upon the reve¬ 
rend bench to attest their solemn appeal to Providence, he hoped 
they would ask their own conscience, at that retired hour, when the 
still small voice of nature was heard, and then consider whether they 
were satisfied with their own conduct, and were convinced they were pur¬ 
suing a course which was likely to be productive of safety and benefit 
to their country. Let him (Lord Plunket) not be accused of offering 


424 


plunket’s speeches. 


a threat; it would be presumptuous in him to hold such language. 
No threats were likely to influence their lordships; no threats of 
popular violence or insurrection should have, or ought to have any 
effect upon the noble lords in that house. He trusted that any one 
there would be ready to join heart and hand in giving assistance to 
the government of the country, in resisting everything tending to 
insurrection. But the danger was, that things might come to such 
a pass that the government could not go on—that we should be re¬ 
duced to a state of utter anarchy. These were questions which noble 
lords, who made those appeals to the reverend bench, should put to 
their own minds; for though they might withstand a sudden explo¬ 
sion of popular fury, there was a deeply-seated sense of wrong ready 
to burst forth in the hour of danger, which impressed minds of most 
fortitude with a sense of terror. Many of their lordships, he thought, 
might be reconciled to the measure, if he could find arguments to 
show that it was necessary to the security of the institutions of the 
country. He should, therefore, in pursuance of the promise he had 
made, now proceed to call the attention of their lordships to the 
nature of the case before them. What was their lordships’ place in 
the constitution ? They were invested with noble and high privi¬ 
leges as a branch of the legislature ; they v\ ere the hereditary coun¬ 
sellors of the crown ; they were the highest judicial court of appeal 
in civil and criminal cases, and, from their character, growing out of 
their station, rank, and place in the country, they were entitled to 
the respect and reverence of the country. Their lordships must not 
believe that he flattered them, when he assured them, that they stood 
as high in the opinion of the country as any branch of the legislature. 
Then, were any of these high privileges assailed ? No; but wfiat 
they claimed was a share in the representation of the country. There 
might be cases in which, for the sake of avoiding mischief, and in 
discharge of their duty to themselves and to the crown, they ought 
to resist the demands of the people. But was this one of those 
cases ? If a struggle took place, could their lordships resist the right 
of the people to a full and fair representation in parliament ? “ Do 

as you would be done by,” was a simple and sublime maxim whicli 
vindicated its divine origin; “ Do as you would be done by,” and 
he would ask their lordships if the people claimed any of the privi¬ 
leges of the crown or of the House of Lords, if they interfered with 
their lordships’ hereditary titles, would their lordships be disposed to 
submit quietly to the invasion ? Suppose, they had got possessiou 
of those privileges, and an act of parliament was introduced for 
restoring them to their rightful owners, would their lordships think 


PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 


425 


themselves fairly treated if the House of Commons, standing on no 
other plea than their power to do so, threw out the bill ? Their 
lordships in such a case must submit; but would it be a sincere, a 
cheerful submission t They would submit, but it would be only be¬ 
cause they could not help submitting. Then the two cases ran 
exactly parallel; the people of England were as much entitled by 
law to a full and fair representation in the House of Commons as 
their lordships to their seats in that house. The principle contended 
for by noble lords was an unintelligible principle; it was a claim on 
the part of an oligarchy—to what ? to a right to return a part of 
the democracy. The principle was wholly unintelligible; and he 
defied any phrenologist to point out an organ which could compre¬ 
hend such an anamoly. He did not think that the accidental circum¬ 
stance of some members of that house having got possession of a few 
places in the other house of parliament, was any reason why their 
lordships should consider it unjust to restore them. He had thus 
got rid of the objection as to any operation of this measure against 
the privileges of that house. He then came to the rights of the 
throne. All knew what the rights of the throne were. This measure 
did not interfere with any of the rights of the throne. He was not 
aware that any language had been used to deny the rights of the 
throne, the prerogative of dissolving parliament, or calling up to that 
house those in whose favour it might think fit to exercise that pre¬ 
rogative. There was no doubt that the king had the right and preroga¬ 
tive of making himself known to his people and erecting a throne in 
their hearts. He thought that what bad been said upon this subject 
was unconstitutional trash. The king’s name was not to be used to 
impute personal blame and responsibility. The king could do no 
wrong ; but, to say that the King of England, the representative of 
the house of Brunswick, which had been invited to this country to 
protect its rights and liberties, had not a right to make himself known 
to his subjects as their father and protector, was trash. The King 
of England was not like an eastern monarch; we were not to look at 
a king as an abstract idea ; he was entitled to make himself known, 
and to show that a King of Eugland could be the father of his peo¬ 
ple. He had said more than was necessary on this point, because so 
much had been said respecting the dangers which threatened the 
rights of the crown, and history had been resorted to for no other 
purpose than to pervert facts. Our kings in former times had issued 
their writs, calling on certain inhabitants of counties to return mem¬ 
bers to parliament, in order to advise the king as to what taxes 
should be laid on. A right had been given to places to return menit 


426 


plunket’s speeches. 


bers, and other places had ceased to have representatives. An in¬ 
stance of the latter had not occurred since Richard II., but the former 
practice continued till a much later period. All this, however, had 
no concern with the subject, and It was throwing away time to dis¬ 
cuss it. But, although the prerogative of the king was not affected 
by the abolition of nomination boroughs, yet it was said, if the govern¬ 
ment could not be carried on without them, what was to be done ? 
He should like to know, how the power of buying and selling seats, 
and the sellers putting the money in their pockets, could have any 
bearing on the king’s government. Was it quite certain, that though 
one set of buyers of boroughs might be well disposed to the crown, 
and might combine together for the king’s service and the public 
good, there might not be other combinations not quite so pure ? If the 
king’s government could only be carried on in that manner, he 
thought it would be quite as well that the king should carry on his 
own government. But it was not necessary for the king’s govern¬ 
ment. But it was said that these boroughs were not only a neces¬ 
sary protection against the king, but against the people ; for, that if 
the people were fairly and properly represented, the government 
could not go on, and the House of Commons would swallow up all 
power. This was a most extraordinary doctrine. It came to no 
more nor less than this—that this was not a representative govern¬ 
ment , and he would ask, if that was a thing to be received by the 
people of England with acquiescence and satisfaction ? Ours was 
essentially a representative government. In such a government the 
people had no right to intervene in the duties of the executive go¬ 
vernment ; if they did, that would be a democracy; but they had a 
right to be fully and fairly represented. If the people were alto¬ 
gether excluded, the government would be an aristocracy; if they 
regulated the whole government, and interfered with the executive, 
that would be a democracy. A full aud fair representation of the 
people, united with an aristocracy and an executive with which the 
people did not interfere, was the true nature of our government; and 
one element of that government, without trenching on the others, 
this bill restored. It gave a full and fair representation to the people 
adapted to the present circumstances of the country. It had been 
said by noble lords opposite, that this was a new constitution—that 
ministers were unmaking the constitution—and they were indeed 
doiug so, if the doctrine he had referred to was not correct It 
was said, that if the people were fairly represented, the king would 
not be safe on his throne; but the doctrine was too monstrous to be 
maintained. It was not at that period of enlarged knowledge and 


PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 


427 


reflection, that such a doctrine could be promulgated, without the 
danger of arousing in the country, from one end to the other, the deep¬ 
est excitement. So far from innovation, they were reverting to the 
old and established, and acknowledged theory of the constitution, and 
those who opposed the change were hostile to that established theory. 
When the noble earl (Falmouth) called on the reverend bench to de¬ 
fend the present system, he called upon Christian prelates to defend 
a system of hypocrisy ; but he (Lord Plunket) called on that bench, 
by the same strong and sacred obligations, to join him in supporting 
that which was the real constitution. If their theory was the true 
one, where was it proved to be so ? For it was not one of those 
truths which lie upon the surface. None of our own writers; some 
foreigner had discovered it. How the noble lord had come by it, it 
was not possible to imagine. Here were gentlemen buying and sell¬ 
ing places in parliament for 5000L or 12,000£., which enabled them 
to come in there, and move on the axis of their own particular in¬ 
terests. They revolved in cycles and epicycles, with more satellites 
about them than any planet discovered by Olbers or Herschell or any 
one else; and when it was intended to deprive the favoured inhabi¬ 
tants of A and B of the light of those luminaries, it was supposed 
that the laws of nature were about to be repealed. These were the 
men who, in defiance of the king and the country, would uphold this 
system for the exclusive benefit of themselves, and oppose a measure 
which had received the sanction of the House of Commons and of the 
country. And now one word with respect to the allegations—for to 
call them arguments would be bitter irony—of noble lords, founded 
on the great changes which the bill, according to them, would intro¬ 
duce into the established institutions of the country. “ These insti¬ 
tutions,” say they, “have been framed by our wise and venerated 
ancestors to last for ever—the country has flourished under their influ¬ 
ence, and oh 1 beware, you puny moderns, and do not touch with your 
rash hands what has received the sanction of time, and been formed in 
the spirit of the wisdom of antiquity.” Now, let him ask these sapient 
expounders of the wisdom of our ancestors, whether the world had 
grown older or younger since our ancestors followed tneir ancestors to 
the tomb ? To believe these noble lords, the world was every day 
growing younger, and the old age of the world was its mfancy. With 
them, groping in the dark, was light and wisdom; and experience 
but another name for youthful ignorance. Indeed, he was sure that 
if he divided the house on the question, whether the world was not 
actually younger and less experienced in the year 1 than in 1831, he 
was sure that many noble lords opposite must vote in the affirmative. 


428 


plunket’s SPEECHES. 


What, if our ancestors were as blind worshippers of their ancestors 
as noble lords, wise in their generation, would fain just now persuade 
us to be of theirs, was no advantage to be taken of increased knowledge 
*—of increased experience—of the relations of society being better 
Understood because contemplated under a greater variety of aspects ? 
Were circumstances, the growth of time, and change, the growth of 
both, in the habits of thought and action in the people—and the in¬ 
creased and increasing diffusion of knowledge—and, above all, was 
time, the great innovator, of no influence? And what was the 
change? Why, that change should be effected in the machinery of 
a branch of the constitution. Pray what was the history of the con¬ 
stitution? Were noble lords who objected to all change, at all read 
in that history ? It should seem not, for otherwise they must know 
that the history of the constitution was nothing but the history of its 
changes, and the English constitution might be shortly denominated 
a succession of legislative changes. Such it would be found by any 
man who went about writing its history. But of all these changes, 
the most numerous and most extensive—that is, the chapter of the 
history of change, which would be found to be most various and di¬ 
versified—would be that of the change of the constitution of parlia¬ 
ment. Why, the very peerage, as at present constituted, was a change 
from its original character under our infallible ancestors. Were noble 
lords aware that their original right to sit in that house was derived 
from a species of tenure, of which the whole peerage now contains 
but one instance—a tenure derived from the possession of certain 
iands or tenements ? If so, must they not admit that their right 
to sit there, being different from the original one, their actual con¬ 
stitution was a great departure from the wisdom of our ancestors ? 
Was not, he repeated, the whole history of parliament a history 
of change ? Was not the sweeping away some thirty mitred abbots 
from that house by Henry VIII., a great change? Then, was 
not the addition of sixteen representative Scotch peers by the union 
with Scotland, and of twenty-eight representative Irish peers by 
the union with Ireland, great changes ?—the rather as the nature 
of their tenures of seats in that hQuse were wholly different, not only 
from that by which the English peers exercised their functions, but also 
from each other. The English peers were hereditary, that is, tliQy sat 
there by descent and possession : the Scotch peers sat there by neither 
descent nor possession, nor for life, but for a single parliament; while 
the Irish peers were elected to sit for life, but, as with their Scotch bre¬ 
thren, not from descent or possession. Look then again at the rotation 
system of the Irish bishops, so different from that which regukted the 


PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 


429 


English bishops, with respect to the right to take a part in the pro¬ 
ceedings in that house—in itself a great change from the original 
constitution of our ancestors. Again, let them consider the number¬ 
less changes which had been made in the oaths taken by members of 
parliament since its first constitution, all showing, that the history 
of the English constitution was the history of a succession of legis¬ 
lative changes. But, say noble lords, “ This is all very true; but 
these changes in the constitution were gradual and imperceptible, 
while that now proposed by the noble earl was of unparalleled rapi¬ 
dity The answer was simple: rapid was a term of degree that 
was relative to circumstances, and change was a term different in its 
meaning from restoration. The bill proposed no change not rendered 
imperative by circumstances, and only effected the removal of abuses 
which had been the growth of two centuries. The circumstances 
which at present justify the change explain the rapidny. But then, 
again, say noble lords, “ admitting the necessity of some change, 
and that it should even be a rapid one, why should it be so exten¬ 
sive ? Was not such extent fraught with danger to all existing in¬ 
stitutions ?” His answer was, that the safety was to be found only 
in the extent of the measure. For mark the reasoning of these noble 
objectors to an extensive measure of reform : “ We all,” say they, 
“ admit the necessity of some measure of reform ; not, be it under¬ 
stood, because we conceive that justice or sound policy recommend 
it, but because the public demand is so pressing, that, judging by 
the signs of the times, we cannot help making some concession.” 
Now was it possible for the veriest enemy of the institutions of the 
country to teach a more dangerous lesson than was contained in this 
admission ? Does it not teach the people, that though nothing; 
would be granted on the score of justice, much would be yielded to 
importunity ? And was this the language befitting a British states¬ 
man ? The duty of a statesman worthy of the name was of a far 
other character. He was not to be merely watching and veering 
about with every breeze of the popular will, to borrow a metaphorical 
illustration from the noble earl, and to merely shape his measures as 
the popular vane indicated. No, a statesman should take his stand 
upon an eminence, from which great general principles and lofty 
views revealed themselves at every step, from which he could, unin¬ 
fluenced by mere temporary exigencies, clearly see the people’s rights 
and his own duties, and, while seeing them, perform the one by grant¬ 
ing the other. From this position he should only descend to counsel 
And to decide, to see that the people should enjoy their right, and if 
he found himself capable of effecting this good, he was bound not to 

2 E 




480 


plunket’s speeches. 


await the bidding of the public voice, but to raise the standard of 
political improvement in the advance of the people. His duty it 
was, to devise for the wants of the people, to advise them, to mode¬ 
rate them, to be their leader and conductor to freedom and happiness. 
This was the duty of a statesman, and he who was incapable of it, 
or who neglected it, however he might win favour with noble lords so 
—if we took their own word for it—infallible, disinterested in their 
judgment, would be held in just contempt by an enlightened poste¬ 
rity. The statesman who had discharged his duties in the manner 
which he had just glanced at, alone could turn round to the people— 
in the case supposed by the noble earl (Harrowby) opposite—and 
say to them, should they unfortunately be induced by mischievous 
advisers to exceed the limits of discretion, “ I have been no ill-natured 
spy upon your actions ; I have honestly endeavoured to execute the 
trust confided to me for your benefit. I stand here as your friendly 
adviser, and tell you for your own sakes, to arrest yourselves in your 
progress, and thereby enjoy the blessings which Providence has be¬ 
stowed upon you.” Such an appeal would be irresistible. He felt 
confident in the good sense of the people of England, and was con¬ 
vinced that such seditious papers as those circulated at a Westminster 
meeting some years ago would, so far from influencing the people to 
mischievous ends, recoil upon their promulgators. And now he 
begged to touch upon one other topic before he sat down. It was 
an old argument with the opponents of reform, that the constitution 
worked well, and could not be bettered. This was partially true, so 
far as it applied to many of the institutions of the country—it was 
false as it applied to the subject matter the present bill. It was 
true, that the constitution worked well, if by the term was under¬ 
stood the several institutions of the country ; it was equally true that 
it worked ill so far as the representation of the people was concerned. 
He entirely subscribed to the several panegyrics which had been 
made upon the practical working of most of our institutions. The 
laws were sound, and ably administered; the judges were learned 
and honest; juries impartial; magistrates upright; the clergy pious 
and well informed; the finances judiciously managed ; and the seve¬ 
ral offices of state ably filled; but, with all that, the people were-not 
satisfied; the great good was wanting of contented subjects, and 
they could probably only be made so by receiving that share in the 
constitution which was by law assigned them. All these eulogiums, 
then, had nothing to do with the question before them, which was, 
whether the people were or were not duly represented ? No man 
pretended to deny that our representative system required some 


PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 


431 


amendment, so that it could not be said that the “work-well” eulogy 
could be predicated of it. It was true, that a noble earl (Carnarvon) 
opposite maintained that it could, that the representative branch of 
the legislature did work well in practice; and he quoted passages 
from speeches of Mr. Fox and his noble friend (Earl Grey), delivered 
many years ago, in order to show that they also had been of the 
same opinion. But the noble earl strangely overlooked the very im¬ 
portant fact, that the speeches to which he referred as containing 
eulogies on the British constitution were actually made for reform iu 
parliament, and that these eulogies were a part of the argument for 
that reform. It was plain, then, that some of the institutions of the 
country might be, or they actually were, very good in principle and 
efficient in practice, while others, the representative one, might be 
neither one nor the other. It had been asked, but what, after all, 
would be gained by this bill ? He answered that the people would 
be satisfied, and that hardly a greater benefit could be conferred upon 
a nation than to remove all sources of dissatisfaction. Need he add, 
that no dissatisfaction could be more dangerous than that of an en¬ 
lightened and wealthy people with those who would deny them the 
means of a pure system of representation. The truth was, that no 
argument could be more fallacious than the work-well one, for it 
would be found that beneficial results had grown up under circum¬ 
stances of a most baleful nature, to which it would be absurd to 
attribute them. For example, the Irish parliament, for thirty or 
forty years before its gross and scandalous profligacy led to the act 
of Union, was a mockery of the very name of representation, contain¬ 
ing as it did 200 members, over whose election the people of Ireland 
had as much control as the people of Siberia, and who had no prin¬ 
ciple but venality, and no occupation but sordid self-aggrandizement; 
and yet that parliament, perhaps he should say in spite of it, owing 
chiefly to the exertions of a band of patriots and orators, of whom 
Lord Charlemont and Mr. Grattan were the leaders, was instru¬ 
mental in raising Ireland from barbarism to comparative civilisation 
—from poverty to comparative wealth, and in enabling Ireland to> 
make the most rapid strides towards commercial importance. That 
profligate parliament passed wholesome measures with respect to 
t ra( j e —repealed bigotted laws—removed several of the penal disabili¬ 
ties against the Catholics—and yet, surely, not even the noble mar¬ 
quis (Londonderry), who was so eccentric in his political idiosyncra¬ 
sies, would venture to say, that the Irish parliament was a faithful 
representation of the people. The Union put an end to that mon¬ 
strous system of profligacy, and, as completed by the admirable mea- 


432 


plunket’s speeches. 


sure of Catholic emancipation, for which the friends of Ireland never 
could be too grateful to the noble duke opposite, had effected much 
towards improving the representation of the Irish people. But much 
remained to be done which only a measnre like the present could 
accomplish. The noble and learned lord proceeded to observe, that 
though he had, when early in his political career, raised his voice 
with vehemence against the measure of the Union, and though he 
was far from regretting his conduct on that occasion, he, now that 
the measure had been completed, would resist its repeal to the last 
moment of his existence. Notwithstanding its monstrous abuses, the 
Irish parliament effected some good as, notwithstanding the mon¬ 
strous absurdity of the present representation of Scotland the people 
of that country had advanced in wealth, intelligence, and national 
prosperity. But would any man deny that the people of Scotland 
were dissatisfied with their representative mockery of a system? 
Could he deny that they would be thrown into a state of frenzy and 
fury by having their hopes of reform disappointed ? It required no 
very minute acquaintance with that country to be able to answer the 
question with confidence; all that was wanting was, a knowledge of 
the ordinary workings of human nature. That knowledge showed, 
that the natnral result of increased wealth and intelligence was an 
increased anxiety for the possession of that right without which these 
advantages lose half their value, namely, political freedom. There 
were other topics which he was anxious to touch upon, but felt un¬ 
willing to trespass longer on their lordships’ attention. 

The debate for the day closed with this speech. It was resumed on the fol¬ 
lowing day, Lord Eldon once again reappearing in the house, and warning his 
peers that if this bill were carried, the British constitution would indeed be annihi¬ 
lated. There is something intensely pitiable in the frantic agony with which the 
old Wezeer of George the Third resists Reform—something half-ludicrous, half- 
terrible, in the contrast between the old chancellor and the new. Eldon tells them 
he comes from the verge of the grave, to warn and entreat them to reject the Bill. 
On the same day, Brougham delivers from the woolsack the grand oration in 
which he ends by imploring the Lords, on bended knees, as they value their 
honours, privileges, and estates, not to reject the Bill. Nevertheless, not having 
the fear of God and the people as yet sufficiently before their minds, they did re¬ 
ject it, by a majority of 41 proxies. 

In the month of May next year they succumbed to terror, the influence of the 
Duke of Wellington, the entreaties of the king, and the determination of ministers 
to create peers untii the hostile majority was swamped. 

This desperate determination was mainly due to Brougham, who literally com¬ 
pelled the king to give himself and Lord Grey absolute written control of his pre¬ 
rogative for the purpose. “ I wonder,” said the premier as they left the presence, 
“ how you could have the heart to press him for a written permission when you 
saw the state he was in.” But through these transactions, Brougham seemed to 
bo possessed by the soul of Oliver Cromwell. 


433 


TITHES. 

February 27, 1832. 

It occurrs to me that this speech, of no remarkable oratorical merit, may be 
interesting to the reader for an evidence of Plunket’s opinion of the great Catho¬ 
lic and the great Orange agitator of his day. He speaks in answer to Lord 
Roden. 

Lord Plunket said, that, as he was connected with the Irish 
government, and as an attack had been made on that government, he 
thought the house would excuse him for wishing to say a few words 
on this subject, and in defence of the conduct of the government of 
which he formed a part. He wished that the noble earl who had just 
sat down had presented the petition to which he had alluded, for the 
points it contained were involved in this irregular discussion, the only 
object of which was, to hold out to the people of this country, that the 
government was opposed to the maintenance of the Established church 
in Ireland, and was the enemy of the Protestant interest in that coun¬ 
try. He was certain, however, that whatever was done with re¬ 
spect to tithes, there was no such effectual encouragement given to 
agitators, the value of whose promises the people well appreciated, as 
such opinions as those he had just alluded to, put forth by persons of 
character and property. Those opinions came with great gravity and 
weight, and were calculated on that account, to be most mischievous. 
With respect to what had been said of Mr. O’Connell, he would re¬ 
mind their lordships that that gentleman could not be considered as 
having been legally convicted of any offence ; he had not been found 
guilty by the verdict of a jury. The state of his position with regard 
to the law was this: he had been indicted under a certain act of par¬ 
liament—he had suffered judgment by default, and the act on which 
he had been indicted expired shortly afterwards. Now, if the noble 
and learned lord opposite would produce any authorities to show that, 
under such circumstances, a conviction could legally be carried into 
execution, he should be ready to meet the noble and learned earl on 
that question. He was himself ready to maintain the negative, both 
on principle and on authority. If he was right in that opinion—that 
the judgment suffered by default, under such circumstances, left Mr. 
O’Connell at liberty to move in arrest of that judgment, surely they 
would not say that punishment, which could not be visited on him in 
point of law, should be visited on him in his professional character. 
He was responsible for having affixed the great seal to the patent of 
precedence to Mr. O’Connell. He did not stand up there as his ad¬ 
vocate, nor for the agitators of either side, from both of whom he 


434 


plunket’s speeches. 


had received nothing but obloquy, which he valued for this reason, 
that, next to the approbation of good men, he most esteemed the ob¬ 
loquy of bad men. He, therefore, rested his defence on the same 
grounds as those who sat beside him. But he might also observe, 
that that proceeding was totally unconnected with any question of 
politics, and the patent of precedence was given to Mr. O’Connell 
only on account of his professional eminence. The ordinary way 
of granting a patent of precedence in Ireland was, to enable the man 
to whom it was granted to rank next after the king’s attorney and 
solicitor general. That, however, had not been done for Mr. O’Con¬ 
nell. He had only been named to take rank above those gentlemen 
much his juniors, whom he had seen promoted over his head. 
Whatever he might think of Mr. O’Connell in a political point of view, 
it was impossible to deny that, in his profession, no individual exhi¬ 
bited higher attainments, nor was any man more worthy of the dis¬ 
tinction he had received. That being the case, the government was 
bound to accord him the distinction. It was the object of a rational 
government not to be vindictive, but just, and the gift of the patent 
of precedence was required by justice. He should have been happy 
if, by that mark of kindness, not incompatible with their duty, Mr. 
O’Connell had been induced to betake himself to his profession, in 
which he was entitled to expect the highest honours, but he could 
not regret what had been done. The noble earl opposite had' ex¬ 
pressed his disgust at the conduct of agitators. They were to be 
condemned, undoubtedly ; but if he was asked, who was the greatest 
agitator, he should say, that it was the person who collected together 
large mobs of ignorant persons—who addressed them in a manner 
calculated to raise their jealousies, and revive their prejudices— 
who addressed English people, and called on them to form Protestant 
Associations—telling them that he loved the Catholics as men, but 
that they were a set of people who wished to put down the Protes¬ 
tants and their religion. Such a person was the true agitator. Such 
a person, who thus collected these ignorant assemblages together, and 
scattered among them ambiguous—no, not ambiguous, but unfounded 
assertions; such a person risked the making of Irish agitation not 
only formidable but desperate! To accomplish that fearful object in 
Ireland, all that was wanted was—not a war against the state—not 
a war against the tithes—but a war between the Protestants and 
Catholics. 

The noble and learned earl opposite had again indulged in prophe¬ 
cies. The noble and learned earl had followed this course for forty 
years, according to his own showing. He sincerely hoped that the 


THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND. 


4J5 


noble and learned lord might live for forty years more to prophesy; and 
he sincerely hoped, too, that the noble and learned earl’s prophecies 
might be, at the end of that time, as visionary as they had been up 
to this moment. But, passing from that, he begged to make a few 
observations on the statement which the noble and learned lord had 
made, that the law was not vindicated in Ireland, the noble and 
learned lord had said, that the law was the same in both couu 
tries. He believed that it was in the abstract—that, as far as the 
letter of the law went, the guilt of entering into a conspiracy to re¬ 
fuse payment of tithes was in both countries the same ; but it was a 
very different thing for the chancellor to furnish the attorney-general 
with the abstract principle of the law, and to tell him that such was 
the law, and for the attorney-general to carry on a prosecution under 
it. In these prosecutions there were such things as witnesses, and 
jurors, and the public, all of whom were to be considered; but he 
would venture to say, that, in every instance in which an outrage had 
been committed, a prosecution had been instituted, had been success¬ 
ful, and the authority of the law had been vindicated by the punisn- 
ment of the offender. Although he was not the public prosecutor, he 
was not insensible to the duties of the office. He had communicated 
with the law officers of the crown in Ireland, and with the distin¬ 
guished and very learned person who filled the office of attorney- 
general ; and he would venture to assert, that, in no instance in which 
a prosecution could be successfully instituted had that prosecution 
been neglected. If the noble and learned earl opposite would ask for 
the papers connected with this subject, he would undertake to show, 
from those papers, that what he had stated was really the case. He 
assured the noble and learned lord, that if he would communicate 
with him upon any case in which he thought a prosecution advisable, 
he would undertake either that a prosecution should be instituted, or 
that he should satisfy the noble lord’s miud that it could not be effec¬ 
tually done, and that he would point out to the noble lord the diffi¬ 
culty which would prevent such a prosecution. This he would readily 
do if the noble lord would do him the honour of making to him such 
a communication. 


THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND. 

March 2, 1831. \ 

Plunket contrived to provide for six sons and several nephews at the expense of 
Chinch and State. It was Cobbett’s delight, after he had begun to hate him 




436 


PLUNKETTS SPEECHES. 





heartily, to parade the long pedigree of places and pensions, and to taunt the ol$ 
anti-Union orator with the passage in which he declares that if that infamoue 
measure should be carried, he would pledge his children, like young Hannibal, 
upon the altar of their country, to eternal hostility against the enemies of its 
freedom. Through the latter years of his life, when having once taken place, he 
took to it in earnest, and with all the eagerness and energy of his character, 
after the long self-denying ordinance which he had imposed upon himself, 
from the fall of Lord Grenville to the viceroyalty of Lord Wellesley, the “young 
Hannibals” furnished an easy hit for newspaper scribes and platform Phari¬ 
sees. Plunket felt, or affected a vast disdain for such folk, and if annoyed, never 
condescended to reply or retaliate. However, in the furore of the Reform ex¬ 
citement, Lord Londonderry was tempted to utter the same imputations in his 
place in the house, and further to declare that he agreed with one of O’Connell’s 
opinions, uttered apparently at random in a passion, “ that there was not a more 
pernicious legislator for Ireland, or a more venal politician than Lord Plunket.” 
After speaking for some time, the marquis took his seat, offering no resolution or 
petition, and Plunket rose to propose & vote of censure upon him. 




Mr lords, I rise, with your lordships’ permission, to address 
myself to the question before the house, and for the purpose of re¬ 
plying to one of the most unjust and most unwarrantable attacks that 
has ever been made on any individual within these walls. The 
noble marquis began his observations with a declaration—which I 
give credit to, as I am bound to believe any statement made by a 
noble lord—that he had no personal hostility to me; but I leave it 
to you, my lords, to say, whether his conduct is consistent with that 
disclaimer of personal hostility. The noble marquis, under the pre¬ 
tence of asking me a question, has not thought it unbecoming in him 
to go into a recital of all the falsehoods which newspapers have col¬ 
lected with regard to me or to my family. He has made himself the 
organ of all the calumnies which have been uttered against me, and, 
without the slightest pretence whatever, has made an attack as bit¬ 
ter, as severe, and as unwarranted, as the slender abilities of the noble 
lord will allow him to do. Fortunately for me, the ability of the 
noble lord to strike lags behind his inclination, as, in natural history, 
we see that the most venomous are among the least powerful of the 
animal creation. The noble lord complains that I cried “ hear” to 
some observation of his. I certainly did so : but still am uncon¬ 
scious of having committed very great offence, the rather as I am not 
apt to complain myself when the noble lord deigns, in his own pecu¬ 
liar tone, to cry “ hear” to any remark of mine. My “ hear” I beg 
leave to remark, was at least not a scream—not a sound pushed be¬ 
yond the usual limits of human exclamation—in fact, was not much 
calculated to alarm the ears or the feelings of my auditors. In this* 
I confess, there is a marked difference between us; but surely my 


THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND. 


437 


vocal inability to cope with the noble lord ought not to be charged 
upon me as an offence. A noble baron opposite (Ellenborough) has 
defended the noble marquis’s proceedings as not inconsistent with the. 
usages of the house. “ My noble friend,” said he, “ having thought 
better of it, was by no means irregular in withdrawing the petition 
he rose to present.” In this, the noble marquis, then, is only ap¬ 
pearing in a new character, exhibiting his dramatic versatility. Allow 
me to congratulate him in eclipsing even himself as an orator and a 
logician. It is conceived to be a notable result of most specimens of 
human eloquence to convince others against their preconceptions, and 
persuade them to act according to the wishes of the speaker. For 
the first time, however, in the history of logic and oratory, we now 
have a “ learned Daniel” who, in the course of his oration, actually 
persuades, not others, but himself, to act contrary to his own pre¬ 
determination. The noble lord has frequently before persuaded others, 
who might otherwise have voted on his side, that to do so would be 
acting in the teeth of common sense ; for it is one of the shining at¬ 
tributes of the noble lord’s genius, that his support is injurious only 
to those who have the misfortune to count him as an ally; but this I 
•believe is the first time that his per contra persuasive powers have 
been successfully directed against himself. Long, I trust, will they 
be so harmlessly directed, and long may they be as successful in per¬ 
suading others to the reverse of his intentions as they have in the 
present instance, with himself. Before the noble lord had ventured 
to attack me as he did, and complain of the remuneration which I 
have derived from the public for my services, he ought to have made 
himself somewhat better acquainted with simple facts. Had he been 
present the other evening when I moved for returns of the appoint¬ 
ment of secretary to the Master of the Rolls in Ireland, he would have 
heard me state the object of my motion, and thereby have avoided 
wasting his time and eloquence this evening. I now tell the noble 
lord—not for his personal satisfaction, for with him I will hold no 
terms, and will offer no explanation whatever with a view to remov¬ 
ing his dissatisfaction, but for the satisfaction of the house—the ob¬ 
ject I had in view in moving for these returns. Aspersions, the most 
unwarranted and injurious, were thrown out in another place against 
me with reference to the appointment of my secretary, and a notice 
of motion was given in the House of Commons for documents con¬ 
nected with that appointment. I, accordingly, for the purpose of 
meeting any calumniator who would dare to repeat these aspersions 
to my face in this house, came down and moved for similar returns 
to be laid before your lordshios, so as to afford any noble lord whe* 


438 


plunket’s speeches. 


might be disposed to repeat the calumny an opportunity of doing so, 
and myself an opportunity, which, with God’s blessing, I will never 
shrink from, of meeting, and exposing, andchastising my calumniator. 
In moving for the returns, I also moved for returns of the similar ap¬ 
pointments made by my two predecessors in office, in order that your 
lordships and the public might clearly see, that the aspersions and 
calumny applied as much to Lords Chancellor Manners and Hart, 
as to Lord Chancellor Plunket. 

The noble lord has thought proper, on the authority of a newspa¬ 
per statement, which, I assure your lordships, I have never read, and 
to which I am wholly indifferent, to state, that my family derive 
£36,000 a year from the public, and concerning which he calls upon 
me for an explanation. I will not stoop to refute so extravagant a 
falsehood. I envy not the structure of understanding which could 
bestow upon it a moment’s credence. What! are noble lords to be 
called upon to defend themselves in parliament against every stupid 
calumny which mortified but most impotent vanity, or the virulence 
of faction, may insert iii a newspaper. I am surprised that even the 
noble lord could entertain such a monstrous proposition. He asks me, 
have I made any inquiry as to the source or authenticity of the state¬ 
ment ; I answer him, no. I would not lower myself in my own estimation 
by treating it otherwise than with silent contempt. I ask the noble 
lord, have any statements ever appeared in newspapers touching his 
own personal affairs ? And, if so, has he been called upon, as he calls 
upon me, in his place in parliament, to explain them away ? Was 
it ever, for example, stated—no doubt without any foundation—that 
the noble marquis applied to a certain prime minister for some re¬ 
muneration or pension, which the said prime minister was cruelly un¬ 
just enough to refuse? Was the noble lord, in a word,.ever called upon 
explain to the public the amount and distribution of the large sums of 
public money which found their way to the pockets of the Stuart family ? 
Certainly not; it was reserved for himself to set the precedent of 
making a most senseless newspaper calumny the occasion of as sense¬ 
less an attack on the individual calumniated. I state, then, that the 
newspaper allegation, on which the noble lord has grounded his attack^ 
is totally and absolutely a falsehood. Whether it is quite fair and 
consistent with the usage of parliament and good society to make the 
allegations of a newspaper the pretext of calling upon any noble lord 
to enter into a statement of his family affairs, I leave it, after this em¬ 
phatic denial, to the good taste and gentlemanly feeling of your lord- 
ships. I take leave of the calumny, with this assurance to the noble 
lord, that I am one who have never been a hunter after favours from 


THE LORD CHANCELLOR OP IRELAND. 


43’9 


any minister or government whatever. I am not one who has given 
his support or his opposition in parliament according to the mere dic¬ 
tates of vanity or personal interest, and I am one who never made a 
demand for public money which the individual from whom it was de¬ 
manded was forced to stigmatize as “ too bad.” The noble lord pro¬ 
fesses to entertain no feelings of personal hostility against me. I 
profess to entertain no such feeling against him; but this I tell him, 
by way of wholesome warning, that if he, on any future occasion, ven¬ 
ture to indulge in rash attacks on my character, though I will not de¬ 
grade myself by following the example of personal invective, he may 
perhaps have little reason, so far as the vanguards are concerned, to 
congratulate himself with a large balance on the credit side of the 
account between us. The noble lord has thought fit to catechise me 
as to the advice which I may have felt it to be my duty to give my 
sovereign in matters connected with the office I hold under him. 
What right has the noble lord, or any noble lord, to ask me such a 
question ? Or, on what ground should he venture to charge me with 
having deprived him of the confidence of his majesty, and to have 
given his majesty counsel displeasing to a party who arrogate to them¬ 
selves exclusive loyalty, while they are thwarting, by every means in 
their power, the king’s government ? Such questions and such charges 
are the mere ravings of distempered vanity, and are not to be reasoned 
with by those who are capable of sound ratiocination. I can assure 
the noble lord that, so far from occupying the time of my sovereign 
with discussions of the noble lord’s transcendent merits as a states¬ 
man, an orator, or a logician, I never have wasted a moment of even 
my own time on either, and that the noble lord’s affairs are to me a 
matter of as utter indifference, as I am sure they must be to the ra¬ 
tional portion of the public. This declaration may not be flattering 
incense to the noble lord’s estimate of his own public merits, but it is 
a simple fact, which I trust will spare him much future fretfulness. 
I do not recollect whether there is any other point on which the noble 
lord is anxious to “ obtain some explanation.” If there be, and that 
he will have the goodness to remind me of it, I shall be very happy 
to afford him all in my power. Perhaps the little I have afforded 
will suffice him for the present; if not, let him hoist the flag, and I 
am ready for the combat. With respect to the members of my family, 
I have nothing to conceal in regard to any of them. If they hold 
public situations, they fulfil the duties attached to them, and are not 
therefore, an improper burthen on the public. I have six sons, and 
I have certainly endeavoured to provide for them, as it is my duty to 
do. Two of my sons are in the church, two at the bar. I defy even 


440 


PLUNKET'S SPEECHES. 


calumny to impeach their conduct at either. My eldest son derives 
no emolument from the public, and all my family occupy but that 
station in society to which I am persuaded they are fully entitled. 

After Plunket sat down, Lord Londonderry rose again to explain. A short 
angry scene followed. Plunket’s temper had been fiercely stirred, and the marquis 
was at the best of times rather disorderly. The debate that followed was a series 
of interruptions of the most laconic character. “ The noble lord,” complains 
Lord Londonderry, “ calculates what I have received during ten years diplomatic 
service, compares it with his own, and draws a large balance against me.” 

Lord Plunket—I did no such thing. 

The Marquis of Londonderry—I ask you, my lords, is that a fair way of 
meeting the charges ? 

Lord Plunket—I repeat I did no such thing. 

Again the marquis returns to the list of places.—“ As the noble lord has 
provoked me to it, I will read what is stated of him by which it will be seen 
whether the economical and retrenching administration with which he is con¬ 
nected take care to feather their own nests. The first item is, the Lord Chan¬ 
cellor of Ireland .£10,000.” “ That,” said Plunket, “ is the first falsehood.’’ After 
a little, Lord Grey and Lord Ellenborough interfered; Lord Londonderry apolo¬ 
gized for the breach of order he had been guilty of, and the motion was with¬ 
drawn. 


FAREWELL TO THE BAR. 
June 21, 1841. 


Upon the last day of Plunket’s appearance in court every portion of its space 
was densely thronged. He decided some few cases, and in one of them referred 
“to the person who was to succeed him in the office he then filled ” At the 
conclusion of the business of the day, Sergeant Greene, as the senior of the Bar 
present, addressed him thus:— 

“ I presume, my lord, it is not your lordship’s intention to sit again in this 
court; I therefore rise, as the senior in rank of the members of the Bar now pre¬ 
sent, and with the full concurrence of the brethren of my profession (here all the 
members of the Bar rose simultaneously), to address your lordship a few words 
before your retirement from that bench over which your lordship has for many 
years presided.” 

Lord Plunket rose from his seat, and advanced to the front of the bench. 

My lord, we are anxious to express to your lordship the sense we entertain, 
not only of the ability, the learning, the patience, and the assiduity which have 
marked your lordship s administration of the high and important functions com- 
\iitted to your lordship’s charge, but also, my lord, of the courtesy, kindness, 
and attention which we have all personally experienced at your lordship’s hands 
in the discharge of our professional duties in this court. We gratefully acknow¬ 
ledge, my lord, the disposition you have ever shown to accommodate us aH—a 


FAREWELL TO THE BAR. 


441 


disposition by which we all admit your lordship was ever actuated, without re¬ 
gard to personal circumstances or to our political feelings or predilections. We 
trust, my lord, it will be said that this feeling on our part will be as general and 
as uneversal, as the kindness on your part has been uniform and uninterrupted. 
M> JorJ, it is needless for us to dwell here, for the purpose of commenting upon 
the talents and endowments which have raised your lordship to the high posi- 
tion from which you are about to retire. They are, my lord, recorded in our 
history, and they will long live among the proudest recollections of our country¬ 
men. From a sense of these, we offer to you our present tribute of the pro- 
foundest admiration and respect; and, my lord, it is gratifying for us to add, 
that at no period of your lordship’s career have they ever shown in greater lustre 
than at this moment. My lord, with warmest wishes for your lordship’s hap¬ 
piness in that retirement, which none is more fitted than, your lordship to adorn, 
we respectfully bid your lordship farewell.” 

When the Bar had concluded their address, the Attorneys presented theirs, at 
the close of which Plunket said— 

It would be great affectation on my part if I were to say that I 
do not feel to a considerable degree at the prospect of retiring from a 
profession, at which I have for a period of more than fifty years of 
my life been actively engaged—a period daring which I have been 
surrounded by friends, many of them warm ones ; 

His lordship then paused evidently much affected, 
without exception: many of them are now no more ; some of them, 
nay many of them I see at this moment around me. This retirement 
from the active scenes in which I have been so long engaged, and 
which have become as it were incorporated with my life, I cannot 
help feeling, and/eeling deeply. It has, however, in some degree been 
alleviated by the prospect of the repose which is probably better suited 
to this period of my life, and which perhaps would have earlier in¬ 
duced me to retire but for events of a particular description which 
have latterly occurred; but independent of this I must say, that any 
pain I would have felt has been more than alleviated by the kind and 
affectionate address which has been offered to me by my friend Ser¬ 
geant Greene,, and which has been so cordially assented to by the 
members of both professions. 

I am not unconscious that in the discharge of those duties, my ability 
for which has been so over-rated; by my friend Sergeant Greene, I hav e 
been led into expressions of impatience which had been much better 
avoided. For any pain that I have given in doing so, or any feelings 
that I have hurt, I sincerely apologize, and I am grateful to the pro¬ 
fession for not having attributed to inclination any such observations; 
and I must say, that whatever any such expressions may have been, 
they never have influenced me. It is a sentiment that I trust never 



442 


plunket’s speeches. 


will influence me ; and I am now able to say, that in retiring from 
my profession, I do not carry with me any other sentiment than that 
of affectionate consideration for all and every member of the profession. 

Now with respect to the particular circumstances which have oc¬ 
curred, and the particular succession which is about to take place in 
this court, it will become me to say very little. For the individual 
who is to occupy the situation I now fill, I entertain the highest po¬ 
litical and personal respect—no one can feel it more so—but I owe 
it as a duty to myself and the members of the bar to state, that for 
the changes which are to take place I am not in the slightest degree 
answerable ; I have no share in them, and have not directly or indi¬ 
rectly given them my sanction. In yielding my assent to the propo¬ 
sition which has been made for my retiring, I have been governed 
solely by its having been requested as a personal favour by a person 
to whom I owe so much, that a feeling of gratitude would have ren¬ 
dered it morally impossible that I could have done otherwise than to 
resign. 

When I look at the Bar before me, and especially the number of 
those who might have sat efficiently in this judicial place, I am bound 
to say, that for all those great ingredients which are calculated to en¬ 
able them to shine as practitioners, and as members of the Bar, or as 
gentlemen, for candour, for courtesy, knowledge, and ability—I chal¬ 
lenge competition—I challenge the very distinguished Bars of either 
England or Scotland, and I do not fear that those I have the honour 
of addressing would suffer in the comparison. To them, for their re¬ 
peated kindnesses I am deeply indebted. I do assure them that when 
I retire into quiet life, I will cherish in my heart the affectionate kind¬ 
ness and attention which I experienced at their hands. 

PI unite t was deeply affected during the delivery of this parting address. At 
its conclusion he bowed to the Bar, and left the court, leaning upon the arm of 
his friend Sir Michael O’Loghlen, Master of the Rolls. 

The profession which he had so long adorned, added to its parting honours a 
levee. Nearly all the practising -members of the profession waited upon him at 
his mansion in Stephen’s green. “ So numerous a bar levee had never before 
been witnessed in Ireland;” writes the author of Ireland and its Rulers. “ It was 
thronged by Tories, Conservatives, High Whigs, Low Whigs, Radicals, Com Ex¬ 
changers, and Repealers. Several of the judges were present; the Master of the 
Rolls, who hated all kind of pomp, put on his state-robes for the occasion, and 
since the days when Charlemont House was in its glory, so many influential per 
eons had never gathered under the roof of a private individual in Ireland.” The 
old man, it is said, was full of animation and energy, and in perfect possession, 
of all his fine faculties, on this day, the occasion of his last appearance in public 
Jif®. 


APPENDIX. 


443 


THE KING AGAINST WALLER O’GRADY. 

I hats printed the following celebrated speech as the most perfect specimen upon record) 
of Plunket’s consummate power of pleading. I have not willingly consigned so much space 
to a dry legal argument, but I could not help feeling that it was due to his high profes- 
Bional fame. 

Old Chief Baron O’Grady, in the year 1817, appointed his son Waller to the situation of 
Clerk of the Pleas in the Court of Exchequer. Saurin, instigated it was believed by a per¬ 
sonal animosity, which was sometimes supposed to stimulate his official conduct, astonished 
the Four Courts, by instituting proceedings on the part of the crown, against the new offi¬ 
cer—on the ground that the king, not the court, had the right of appointment. The Chief 
Baron resisted with the first abilities and energy to be had at the Irish Bar, and the case 
became a regular legal tournament—in which Saurin and Bushe, on the part of the crown, 
and Plunket and Burton on that of the court, debated every point of law, vestige of tradi¬ 
tion, and atom of precedent, that could by possibility be brought to bear upon the case. 

The following is Plunket’s speech to the jury. 

It is now my duty to lay before you the case of the clerk of the Pleas 
of the Court of Exchequer: and my lords and gentlemen, I am appre¬ 
hensive, that in so doing I shall be obliged to claim a larger share of 
the time, of the attention, and of the indulgence of the court and jury, 
than I should be disposed to do. But this case is one of very great im¬ 
portance to the parties, and to the public ; and I should not satisfactorily 
discharge my duty to my client, to the learned judge who has appointed 
him, or to the Court of Exchequer who have justified that appointment, 
and who are now brought before the bar of this court upon a criminal 
information to answer the charge of having usurped upon the rights of 
the crown, which they are by their oaths bound to maintain, were I not 
to enter with some minuteness into every part of this extraordinary case. 

You already know, my lords, from the statement of the counsel for 
the crown, that this is a claim of right by Mr. Waller O’Grady as the 
clerk of the Pleas of the Court of Exchequer; a claim put upon an ap¬ 
pointment by the chief baron of that court, which has been ratified and 
acted on, and admitted as an authority, by the whole Court of Exche¬ 
quer. It is a claim on his part, I allow, against a long usage by the 
crown, and I do not scruple to admit it to be right and proper that that 
claim should be carefully examined. It is certainly the right and the 
duty of the king’s law officers to take care that his rights shall not be 
usurped, or his just prerogative diminished ; but it must be equally ad¬ 
mitted, that if the claim of the chief baron be a well-founded one, it is 
fair upon his part to urge it: nay more, that it would be a most gross 
dereliction of his duty to suffer any of the rights intrusted to him by the 
law to be diminished or impaired. 

I agree with the proposition laid down by the attorney-general, that 
according to the constitution of these countries, the king is the fountain 
of all office ; and I agree further, that it is the duty of the king’s attor* 
ney-general to provide that this right of the crown, so far as it remains, 
shall be guarded from encroachment. But if by this position it is meant 
to be insisted, that all offices in this country are derived immediately 
from the crown, I beg leave totally to deprecate such a doctrine. All 
offices are certainly derived from the crown mediately or immediately; 
but it is equally, true, that there are many offices vested by the consti¬ 
tution and by the common law in other persons, as incident to office? 
derived by them from the crown, and over which the king can have no 


444 


APPENDIX. 


control. With respect to those offices which are exercised in courts of 
justice, whether the persons who are to fill them be appointed by the 
courts or not, in all cases where they are to be admitted by the court, 
the care of them is intrusted to that court and to that alone. If the 
crown conceives itself injured by such an admission, the attorney-general 
has no right to proceed by a prerogative information, but the only legal 
mode of trying the right, is by the crown’s appointing an officer and 
having his title tried in the first instance in the court to which he is ap¬ 
pointed, and if their decision be unsatisfactory, then by appealing to 
another. This proposition I pledge myself to demonstrate to the court 
and the jury. 

Having premised so much, I shall call the attention of the court to 
the admitted facts of this case : namely, that the office of clerk of the 
Pleas is an ancient office in the Court of Pleas of the Exchequer, the 
duty of which is to enrol pleas and judgments of that court, and which 
is of high concern to the administration of public justice, that the pre¬ 
sent defendant has been appointed by the chief judge of that court, and 
that he has been regularly admitted by the entire court. Having stated 
so much, I must beg leave to say, that this proceeding is unprecedented, 
vexatious, unwarrantable, and illegal in every particular. I state once 
for all, to my learned friend the attorney-general, that I am sure he 
will not suppose, that in so speaking, I mean any personal disrespect to 
him. I am sure that in instituting this proceeding, he has been actuated 
solely by considerations of duty and a laudable desire to maintain what 
lie conceives to be the just rights of the crown. Is or is there any man 
for whose legal knowledge and information upon general subjects I en¬ 
tertain a higher lespect. But I must say, that in the present instance, 
by some fatality, he has acted in direct violation of the best established 
principles of the constitution; and that a proceeding of this nature can 
have no other tendency than to bring humiliation and disgrace on courts 
of justice, and odium upon the prerogative of the crown. And I say 
this now, because I conceive this is the place and the time—when the 
judges of the land are brought to the bar of this court to answer for 
their conduct, upon a criminal information—when the judges of a su¬ 
perior original court are called as culprits and usurpers before the tri- - 
bunal of another and a co-ordinate jurisdiction. 

Wherever a court of justice is created, of necessity the judging of 
the admissions of the persons who are to be their clerks is vested in 
such court. They are the persons intrusted by the law to judge of 
Mie sufficiency of the persons to be admitted, and also the legality of 
their title. Unless they are satisfied of both, they ought not to admit. 
Upou this. I shall refer your lordships to the treatise on the authority 
of the Master of the Rolls, a book, your lordships are aware, of very 
high authority, and which, it is well known, was written by Sir Joseph 
Jekyll. In the second section, 64, 65, it is laid down, “ The admission 
of officers of courts of justice, by whomsoever nominated, belongs to 
those courts, who are to judge of their qualifications. And accordingly, 
though the nominated officer is usualiv admitted, yet in some instances. 


APPENDIX. 


445 

he has been rejected, as in Dyer, 150, in the case of the clerk of 
crown, who is nominated by the king under the great seal. For the 
nomination, admission, and swearing of officers, is an act of the court/* 
And for these positions he cites the year book 9. Edw. IV., p. 5, which I 
have examined, and which is direct on the point. The case referred to in 
Dyer is Hunt v. Allen (Dy., 149 a. 152 b.), which was an assize by Hunt 
against Allen, the question turning on the validity of the nomination of 
Hunt. And the case of Fogge, chief clerk or custos brevium, in 18 
Edw. IV. was cited, “where the justices would not allow the patent of 
the king to encumber the place, because there cannot be two chiefs in 
one office.” And the court accordingly refused to admit him. There 
is a further case in Dy. 150 b. upon the same subject. The crown 
appointed Croxton and Vynter clerks of the crown ; Croxton died, 
and Vynter came into court and showed the king’s patent, and prayed 
to be admitted, &c., but the court refused to admit him, and appointed 
another person. I am now showing the authority of courts to refuse 
admission if they think proper. The admission of the officer is “ an 
act of the court,” judging of the fitness of the person, and the legality 
of the appointment. The latter of the above cases in Dyer is an in¬ 
stance of rejection on account of unfitness in the person, and the former 
for the illegality of the appointment. And in further confirmation of 
this right I beg leave to cite to the court, Cavendish’s case, 1 Ander¬ 
son, 152. There the crown appointed a person to execute writs of 
supersedeas in the Court of Common Pleas. The judge of that court 
refused to admit him, because in point of law the grant was void, inas¬ 
much as the duty of making such writs belonged to the chief prothono- 
tary. It appears that this case was attended with much difficulty on 
the part of the court, and much exertion on the part of the crown. 
But yet no idea was entertained that such a proceeding as a quo war¬ 
ranto would lie, notwithstanding that great efforts were made on the 
part of Cavendish. The justices, however, refused to yield to either 
menaces or importunities, and the crown was at length obliged to ac¬ 
quiesce. This was in the reign of Elizabeth. Now, according to these 
doctrines and these precedents, I take upon me to say, that the uniform 
course and practice has been, in every case where it is conceived that 
the right of the crown or of any other party has been affected by the 
admission of any officer by a court, to try the right by the nomination 
of an officer on the part of the party complaining, and to have the title 
of that officer in the first instance tried by the court which has given 
such admission. The present proceeding is without even the colour of 
precedent in the whole history of the law ; in England or in Ireland ; 
before the Revolution or since the Revolution ; there never before was 
an example in which the act of a superior court of justice admitting its 
own officer has been questioned at the bar of another court; much less 
by such a proceeding as a criminal information; and I must again re¬ 
peat, that the direct tendency of it is to throw disgrace upon the ad¬ 
ministration of justice, and odium upon the prerogative of the crown. 

I thought it my duty to apprise the attorney-gem ral, that we couau 


APPENDIX. 


446 

dered this proceeding so mischievous and unconstitutional, that we 
Bhould be called upon to arraign it. I do not find that the attorney- 
general has stated any other reason in its vindication, than an usage on 
the part of the crown to appoint to this office for 400 years. It is not 
only the privilege, but the duty of the king’s officer to assert his right; 
I do not mean to say there is anything criminal in it; but why the 
staleness of this demand should now for the first time justify a pro¬ 
ceeding in the teeth of all decency and all precedent, I do not see the 
semblance of a reason. If it be said, no action has been brought, be¬ 
cause if it had, it must have been tried in the first instance in the Court 
of Exchequer; the answer is, that the law has said so. And it has 
said so, for the best reason, in order to avoid a clashing of jurisdictions, 
which must be the consequence of allowing one court to be called be¬ 
fore another, as is done here, to answer for the exercise of its discre¬ 
tion in the appointment of its own officer. Nor is it in the power of 
the crown to defeat this courtesy of the law by resorting to such a 
proceeding as a criminal information. The privilege of correcting an 
erroneous decision (if this was so), is as great a privilege as that of 
affirming it. If the Court of Exchequer had done anything amiss, if 
on the trial of an action they should decide against the just rights of 
the crown, they are liable to be corrected by way of appeal, and in no 
other way. No other court has any original jurisdiction. Suppose au 
application had been made to this court, not as is now done, by a pre¬ 
rogative information, but for liberty to file such an information, the 
court must have refused it. They must have refused it, in analogy to 
every principle of law; for there is no instance to be found of one court 
of justice questioning the act of another, of co-ordinate jurisdiction, 
especially in the appointment of its own officers. This court never had, 
in any shape, an appellate jurisdiction over the Court of Exchequer. 
This doctrine is fully laid down in 4 Inst. 71,105, 106, where it is said, 
that the crown could not grant such a jurisdiction. So that this is au 
attempt to give originally to this court the right to reverse the deci¬ 
sions of the Court of Exchequer, a right which even the crown coual 
not give by way of appeal. 

Suppose judgment of ouster given by this court against the officer of 
the Exchequer, where is the jurisdiction in this court to arm its officers 
with the power of enforcing it ? Suppose, after such a judgment, the 
Court of Exchequer were to say that the officer should still act, where 
is the power, either in this court or in the crown to restrain him ? Is 
a party to be brought into court by criminal information as an usurper, 
because he acts under the authority of a superior court, a court which 
has exclusive jurisdiction over his office, and which can commit him to 
prison if he refuses to perform it ? What authority has this court to 
punish the officer of the Court of Exchequer, any more than the Court 
of Exchequer has to punish the officer of this court ? 

I have complained that this proceeding is vexatious : I say again, it 
is vexatious in every part of it, and that it cannot be attended with any 
advantage to either the king or the public. It not merely puts the de- 


APPENDIX. 


447 


fendant to prove his title., as has been said by Mr. Attorney-General, 
but it hampers him in point of pleading: so that even if his title were 
good, he would be liable to be defeated by a trivial irregularity. Ho 
is precluded from pleading double matter: so that if he had ten de¬ 
fences, he must yet resort to only one, and if the issue be found against 
him on that one, it is fatal to his case. If lie be successful, he can have 
no costs, but is compelled to defend himself at his own expense : and 
if he fails, he has costs to pay. I say, it is a prerogative of so severe a 
nature, that it ought not to be resorted to, unless where there has been 
a direct and manifest usurpation of the rights of the crown. Had the 
attorney-general inquired, he would have been informed of the nature 
of this appointment. He would have learned,.that it was not a claim 
set up by a stranger, but made by the chief baron, and ratified by the 
court. Immediately upon the making of this appointment, my lord 
chief baron waited upon the lord lieutenant, and informed him that he 
felt himself bound by his oath to maintain the rights of the crown, and 
proposed that the case should be referred to the principal law officers: 
offering at the same time to waive any advantage gained by the appoint¬ 
ment. That proposal, for what reason I know not, has been declined. 

I do not mean to say that any blame upon this subject is imputable to 
the lord lieutenant, of whom I wish to be considered as speaking with 
every sentiment of personal respect. The first intimation given to the 
chief baron after this communication of the intention of the crown, 
was by the filing of this information. 

Allow me now to ask, whether, if the Court of Exchequer refused 
to admit another officer, a mandamus could issue from this court to 
compel them ? To show that it could not, I beg to cite Lee’s case, 
Carth. 169, 170. 3 Mod. 332, 335. S. C. In that case, a manda¬ 
mus to admit a proctor into the Ecclesiastical Court was refused, and 
on this ground “ that (3. Mod. 335.) officers are incident to all courts, 
and must partake of the nature of those several and respective courts, 
in which they attend; and the judges, or those who have the supreme 
authority in those courts, are the proper persons to censure the beha¬ 
viour of their own officers, and if they should be mistaken, the King’s 
Bench cannot relieve: for in all cases where.such judges keep within 
their bounds, no other courts can correct their errors in proceedings.” 
And the sole question raised in that case was, whether the court had 
acted within its jurisdiction. Sir Bartholomew Shower, who was coun¬ 
sel for the mandamus, in his argument endeavours to distinguish the 
case, as being that of an inferior jurisdiction : admitting that it would 
be otherwise in the case of the Court of Common Pleas. This case 
will be material in a subsequent part of my argument, as showing that 
the course of the court is the law: but at present I use it only to show 
that one court is not subjeot to the control of another of co-ordinate 
jurisdiction. 

Again, this proceeding is most vexatious; for even if judgment of 
ouster should be pronounced against the defendant, there could.not. be' 
judgment for the king to put him into possession of this franchLe* be- 


*48 


APPENDIX. 


cause he cannot exercise it himself. Rex v. Stanton, Cro. Jac. 259, 
260. From the entry in 1 Lill. 6. Woodhouse v. Twyford, it appears, 
that when a plea or privilege is put in by an officer of the court, he is 
not obliged to go into the right of appointment, but need merely state 
his appointment and admission. Thus this proceeding is additionally 
vexatious. If the crown gets a judgment of ouster, the consequence 
will be, that it will appoint a person to execute this office, who must go 
back to the Court of Exchequer, and according to the course of law, 
submit to them the validity of that appointment. Nor is this merely 
a wanton conjecture; for in the late act of parliament passed in the 
last session, making provision for the fees of this office, it is recited, 
“ And whereas his royal highness the Prince Regent, in the name, &c. 
proposes to make a grant of the said office,” which is a direct inti¬ 
mation that the crown is to grant. “ And whereas a suit has been 
instituted, and other suits may hereafter be instituted respecting 
the right of a grantee of his majesty, &c.’’ So that this proceed¬ 
ing is to end in a grant by the crown to try the right. Should these 
suits which are spoken of, be instituted, where are they to be tried l 
Can they be tried any where but in the Court of Exchequer ? Unless, 
indeed, in the spirit of these proceedings, an act of parliament is to be 
passed for transferring the jurisdiction. If these suits are to be con¬ 
formable to precedents from the earliest times, they can follow no other 
course than that which I have suggested. And can it be thought a 
wholesome or a sound exercise of that discretion which is placed in the 
crown, instead of trying the right in the first instance, to institute a 
proceeding which is to deprive the party of the benefit of pleading, to 
subject him to costs, and to call down condemnation upon the Court of 
Exchequer? And this for the purpose of again submitting the same 
question to that same court, thus degraded and vilified ? It can only 
bring the law into disgrace: and if my learned friend the attorney- 
general were now addressing your lordships, he would disclaim such an 
imputation. I am sure he is incapable of sanctioning so revolutionary 
and jacobinical a doctrine: and if these shameful consequences had 
struck his mind, he would never have prosecuted such a suit. So firmly 
was I impressed with the weight of these consequences, that I advised 
the chief baron to call on this court to enter a remanet upon this record, 
till the opinion of the twelve judges could be had upon it, and until 
(if necessary) the twelve judges of England should be consulted. He 
has, however, declined to do so, and desires his case to go before a jury 
but I should not have conceived I had done my duty, had I not advised 
him as I did. 

There are three material issues before the court and the jury. The 
first is upon an uniform usage alleged by the attorney-general to have 
existed in the crown from time immemorial, to appoint to this office. 
The second is upon a right of the chief baron as chief judge of the 
court (which he is by this pleading admitted to be,) and by the usage 
and course of the court, namely, that he should appoint to all such of¬ 
fices as the court were at any time entitled to appoint to: and the third 


APPENDIX 


449 


h simply upon that usage. These issues are all nearly connected with 
each other. In order to have a determination upon the second, we 
must previously dispose of the first: and accordingly this course has 
been taken by the crown. The argument of the attorney-general is 
this : that if the court has such a right, it must be, either by the origi¬ 
nal constitution of the court, or by prescription, or by act of parliament: 
and he says that there is no evidence of this being the original consti¬ 
tution of the court. Again he says, that even if the right ever were in 
the court, yet, first, it could not be legally transferred, and secondly 
that in point of fact it was not transferred. This, if I mistake not, 
comprehends the sum of his argument. The words used by him in stat¬ 
ing the right of the court, are somewhat ambiguous: he says that if 
there be such a right, it must be either “ by the constitution of the 
court, or by prescription, or by act of parliament.” What is meant by 
the original constitution of the court, I do not exactly know. If it 
means the common law, then I heartily subscribe to the position: buo 
if it means some positive institution of the court, as implying some at¬ 
tributes which the common law does not allow to it, then I must deny 
it. And here let me remark, that by a singular and unaccountable 
felicity, the attorney-general has not once in the whole course of his 
argument mentioned the name of the common law. That this should 
be the case, I am not surprised: because the attorney-general has 
found himself under the necessity of falling foul of Lord Coke and Lord 
Holt. 

There is a difference between the two modes of expression, common 
law and usage. According to the one, it would be necessary to show the 
right had always existed : but not so in the other. The common law 
is the protection of the inheritances and the liberties of the subject. 
It is a body of immemorial usage ; not arising from prescription—nor 
from act of parliament—nor from charter: but growing out of the 
immemorial usages which have prevailed in these countries . As they 
existed in England they were imported here, as a grand code of law, 
by King John, in the 12th year of his reign. The attorney-general 
has alleged, that although by the common law of England these rights 
were established in the chief justices there, yet it would not be so 
here. I deny that; for I say the subjects of this country are purchasers 
of the common law of England, and of all its properties and all its 
benefits. It was not arbitrarily imposed upon them by conquest: they 
were purchasers of the entire benefit of it; and therefore if by the com¬ 
mon law of England this right is vested in courts of law, it is necessarily 
«o here also. 

In order to learn what is the common law, I know of no other mode, 
than by inquiring into the reasonableness of the thing, the ancient usage 
of the country in that and in analogous cases, the declaration of the legis¬ 
lature, the expositions of wise and learned men, and finally the decisions 
of courts of justice. I shall refer to all these criterions for the pur¬ 
pose of seeing whether there is any common law upon this subject, and 
il so, what it is. The first circumstance for your lordships’ attention i s tl>* 


/ 


450 


APPENDIX. 


declaration in the Stat. of Wcstm. 2 c. 30,13 Edward I., anno 1285; the 
words of which are, “ All justices of the benches from henceforth shall 
have in their circuits clerks to enroll all pleas pleaded before them, like 
as they used to have in times past.” By the common law, wherever a 
court of common law exists, tne judges of that court, or one of them, 
must have a power of appointing the clerks who are to enroll the plead¬ 
ings and judgments. My Lord Coke, in his comment on the above 
passage,* says, •'*Hereby it appeareth that the justices of courts,did 
ever appoint their clerks, some of which after, by prescription, grew to 
be officers in their courts : as here it is put for example, that the jus¬ 
tices of the benches in their circuits had clerks that enrolled all pleas 
pleaded before them, as anciently^they used to have, that is, as by the 
common law.” So that by this comment, Lord Coke declares that the 
statute is in this respect but confirmatory of the common law; and fur¬ 
ther, that the case to which the legislature had applied this declaration, 
is only put by way of example. He then proceeds, “ Now the cause of 
making this branch was, tnat the king was informed that he might 
erect offices for entering and enrolment of records in his courts of jus¬ 
tice, and especially justices of assize, which this branch declaretn to 
belong to the justices, and that they had enjoyed this of ancient time, 
that is, by common law.” Here then Lord Coke declares the common 
law, and expressly states the encroachments of the crown: and that for 
the remedy of this particular encroachment, the statute declared the 
common law. “ And the reason (says he) is twofold. These reasons 
of Lord Coke the attorney-general has treated as ludicrous. I think 
I am sufficiently live to the ridiculous, and have a due sense of the 
facetious powers of my learned friend the attorney-general; but in this 
instance 1 am so dull and stupid as not to feel the ludicrous effect of 
these reasons. The first of them is, “ for that the law doth ever appoint 
those that have the greatest knowledge and skill, to perform that which 
is to be done.” Now, for the life of me, I cannot see the joke. On 
the contrary, if I were looking for a grave and satisfactory reason, 
fit to come from the lips of one of the sages of the law, and to be incor¬ 
porated in that great comment, which is, more than anything that I 
know, the evidence of the common law, I could not have found one 
more so in every respect than this. These were the feelings of ancient 
times—the presumption then was in favour of the wisdom and integrity 
of judges, and that they would exercise their offices with honesty and 
judgment. But it is in these days to be supposed, that judges will not 
exercise their rights with impartiality and integrity ! Such were not 
the feelings of Lord Coke, or of that day, or under which our common 
^w has grown. 

The second reason given by Lord Coke is, that “ the officers and 
clerks are but to enter, enrol, or effect that which the justices do 
adjudge, award or order, the insufficient doing of which maketh the pro¬ 
ceeding of the justices erroneous, (this is a precise statement of the 


2 Inst. 425. 


APPENDIX. 


451 


duty of the clerk of the pleas in the several courts), than which nothing 
can be more dishonourable and grievous to the justices, and prejudicial 
to the party: therefore the law, as here it appeareth, did appropriate 
to the justices the making of their own clerks and officers, and so to 
proceed judicially by their own instruments; and that this was the 
common law, the king cannot grant the office of the shire or county 
c-erk (who is to enter all judgments and proceedings in the county 
court) for that the making of the shire clerk belongeth to the sheriff 
by tlie common law, as in Mitton’s case it appeareth, et sic de cceteris.” 
If a century had been employed in condensing the reasons of this 
common law principle, it could not have been done in words more em- 
phatical than those of Lord Coke. The attorney-general says, the 
court has no interest in the proceedings but only the party. This is 
not the law. The judges are interested, first in the propriety of their 
own judgments, and next in the faithful entering of them. They are 
interested in having their judgments duly taken down and enrolled by 
their own instruments. They are likewise interested in the safety and 
rights of the subjects, suitors in their courts. They are the persons to 
guard that safety and those rights. From the moment that courts of jus¬ 
tice are framed, from that moment the rights and the duties of protecting 
the subject devolve upon them, and it is their interest as well as their duty 
to protect his rights. And yet we are now told, that courts are not proper 
juuges of their duty, but are to be called to the tribunal of some other 
court, to answer for their discharge of those duties of which the law 
has constituted them the only judges. It is a doctrine in the highest 
degree illegal and unconstitutional, fraught with the most mischievous 
consequences, and one which ought to be instantly met and put down. 

For the doctrine thus laid down by Lord Coke, he refers to Mitton’s 
case, 4 Rep. 32. In that case, the crown appointed a sheriff, and then 
appointed a shire clerk. The question was between the sheriff (who 
claimed a power of appointing tne shire clerk) and the appointee of the 
crown. This was in 26 Elizabeth, 1584. The argument for the crown 
admitted, that if the sheriff were the judge of the county court, the 
right by common law belonged to him. The whole question turned 
upon tnis, whether it was the sheriff’s court or not. The attorney- 
general says the question was whether it was the property of the sheriff 
or not; and with some degree of triumph asked, “ if the Exchequer was 
the chief baron’s court ?” N o one ever said that it was; but in the same 
sense as the sheriff’s court is his, the Exchequer is the court of the barons. 
They are both the king’s courts, though these judges preside in them. 
The true and only inquiry was this, was the sheriff the president of the 
court ? And it Is then laid down, “ that law and reason require that 
the sheriff, who is a public officer, and minister of justice, and who 
has an office of such eminency, confidence, peril, and charge, ought to 
have all rights appertaining to his office, and ought to be favoured in 
law before any private person for his singular benefit and avail.” To 
this case Lord Coke adds a decision by Anderson and Popham with 
regard to gaolers, to the same effect. Ail are parts of the same principle 


452 


APPENDIX. 


and analogy, namely, that a derivative office is inseparably incident to 
its principal. In Mitton’s case many precedents of appointments by 
the king were stated ; but what was the answer ? “judicandum est 
legibus, non exemplis” that is to say, that if the law be clear, instances 
the other way are to be considered not as precedents, but as usurpations. 
Now apply these principles to this case: although the king may have 
the power of appointing the judges who constitute the court, yet having 
once constituted them to be a court, the appointment of their clerks 
must be incident to their office, and the crown cannot take it from 
them. In Mitton’s case, though the crown had the appointment and 
removal of the principal, yet it was held not to have the appointment 
of the subordinate officer. 

In the case of Harcourt v. Fox, cited on the other side (1 Show 526) 
this doctrine is still more strongly exemplified. There the king might 
by virtue of his prerogative appoint any of the justices custos rotulorum; 
but the moment he did appoiut one, then, ex necessitate and by the com¬ 
mon law, such custos must have the appointment of clerk of the peace. 

Such is the law as laid down by C. J. Holt, who was one of the most 
distinguished men in the history of our law. He suffered under the 
tyranny of James II., for hi3 integrity and principles, and for his efforts 
in establishing our civil and religious liberties. After the Revolution 
lie was made by King William chief justice of the King’s Bench: and 
by his learning and talents he dignified and adorned that high situation 
to which he had been raised by his integrity and independence. It is 
therefore (allow me to say) a flippant mode of getting rid of the autho¬ 
rity of such a man to say that he had a cause involving a similar point 
on his own part, and was therefore influenced in giving his judgment. 
His words are (530) “ the clerk being the person that must be trusted 
with the rolls to make entries upon, to draw judgments, to record pleas, 
to join issues, and enter judgments, then of common right, by the com¬ 
mon law of the land, it belongs to him that hath the keeping of the re¬ 
cords, to nominate this clerk, and not to any one else.” Here the keep¬ 
ing of the records is relied on as if the right of appointment grew out 
of it. The case of the custos rotulorum was peculiarly circumstanced. 
All the justices were of equal degree, and they could not agree amongst 
each other, which of them should have the right that must belong to 
one, namely, of nominating the custos rotulorum. If they could have 
agreed, it would have become the usage of the court that the one so 
agreed upon should appoint, and there would then have been no pretence 
for the interference of the crown. But this not having been done, the 
crown of necessity appointed the custos, and he, when so appointed, had 
of course the nomination of the clerk of the peace. 

The powers of superior courts do not grow out of the keeping of the 
records, but the keeping of the records belongs to them as judges of 
the courts. The custody of the records is incident to the pronouncing 
of the judgments. Thus it is said “ that all the justices being judges 
of record, the records of the court must belong to them, and certiorari’s 


APPENDIX. 


453 


to remove them must be directed to the justices in general, &c.”* I 
take this case to be a most governing one upon this subject. Your 
lordships see that the right of having the custody of the records is not 
derived from the act of the crown appointing a custos, but the law an¬ 
nexes the custody of the records to the merely being judges in the court. 
And in like manner Lord Coke states this right of appointment to be in 
the court from its constitution, and without reference to any custody of 
the records; he deduces it not from any such custody, but solely from 
their being judges. 

All the points in this case of Harcourt v. Fox are important; because 
justices of the peace, custos rotulorum, and clerk of the peace, are all 
offices created within time of memory; they did not exist at common 
law; their origin was recent. But yet the consequence of the common 
law principle that wherever a court is created they are to appoint their 
own clerks, did, when this new jurisdiction was created, attach to it; 
aud this is the reason why the attorney-general was so unwilling to allow 
this right to be in the court by common law, but w@uld have your lord- 
ships suppose it must have been in them, if at all, by what he calls the 
original constitution cf the court. At all times, and under all circum¬ 
stances, the court, who are to pronounce the judgment, must nominate 
the clerk; so that even if other persons had originally been the judges, 
and then new persons should be appointed, the common law principle 
would attach, and those new persons would have the nomination. For 
instance, your lordships see, that upon the creation of this new jurisdic¬ 
tion of justices of the peace in the time of Edward III., there did not 
result to the king a right of nominating their clerks, but the common 
law principle took it out of the king, and put it into the court; and so 
by the common law, the justices of the peace had the appointment of 
the custos; but they not being able to agree upon the particular person 
who should exercise that right, the king nominated one; but even then, 
the king could not nominate a man who was not in the commission. 
Aud yet if he be the fountain of all office, except so far as a court has 
the appointment from its original constitution, or by prescription, (as 
has been asserted) he might have done so. Why is it then that he could 
not ? because when the legislature had once created a new court of re¬ 
cord, the appointment of its clerks necessarily belonged to that court. 
Your lordships will find that Lord Holt has expressly stated these courts 
to have been created within time of memory. He says, “ the com¬ 
mission of the peace did commence in time of memory, and the justices 
were appointed by the crown, not before the 1st of Edward III., and 
then they were made in lieu of the conservators of the peace, who were 
as ancient officers as the law knew.” The conservators were at com¬ 
mon law, and to them of right belonged the nomination of their own 
clerks. Then the constitution of the court was changed; instead ot 
conservators, there were appointed justices of the peace; but still the 
common law attributes of judges were transferred to those new officers. 


* 1 Shew. 528, 


454 


APPENDIX. 


and in virtue of them, they also had the nomination of their clerks. 
So in 4 Mod. 173. S. C. “ It is plain that it was not an office time 
immemorial, because the commission of the peace is not so.” It then 
mentions the original of the office of custos, and goes on, “ Afterwards 
it became incident to the office of the lord keeper to nominate the cust. 
rot. and then because of the necessity of one to make entries and join 
issues, the custos appointed a clerk for that purpose, who is now called 
jlerk of the peace; and this seems very agreeable to the statute of 
VVestm. 2, by which it appears, that such officers and clerks who are to 
enter and enrol pleas, were always appointed by the judge or chief 
minister of the same court.” 

The next authority to which I shall call your lordships’ attention, is 
Skroggs v. Coleshil, 1 Dy. 175. a. b. The office of exigenter of Lon¬ 
don and other counties became vacant, and afterwards the chief justice 
of the common bench died, and during the vacancy of both offices, the 
queen granted to Coleshil the office of exigenter, and then appointed 
Brown chief justice, who refused to admit Coleshil, and admitted Skroggs 
his nephew. The queen commanded Sir Nicholas Bacon, keeper of the 
great seal, to examine and report the title of Coleshil. And he having 
convened the judges of the Queen’s Bench, the chief baron, the attorney- 
general, and the attorney-general of the duchy, “ took a clear resolu¬ 
tion after a long debate and hesitation of all the premises, that the title 
of Coleshil was null, and that the gift of the said office by no means, 
and at no time belongs or can belong to our lady the queen, but is only 
in the disposal of the chief justice for the time being, as an inseparable 
incident belonging to the person of the said chief, and this by reason of 
prescription and usage. Aud it follows from this, that our lady the 
queen herself cannot be chief justice in the said bench.” It appears 
however, that the queen was not satisfied with this exclusion to which 
3he was subjected, for “ notwithstanding the said resolution of the judges 
aforesaid, the queen upon importunate suit, directed her commission to 
the Earl of Bedford and nine others, giving them authority to hear and 
determine the interest and title of the said office, &c.” And afterwards, 
“ Coleshil exhibited a bill to those commissioners stating his title, and 
Skroggs demurred to the jurisdiction, for which he was committed to 
the fleet, and there remained for two weeks: and then request was 
made by three serjeants in the bench to grant a corpus cum causa , di¬ 
rected to the warden of the fleet. And upon consideration of the court, 
the request was held reasonable, and to be granted, because he was a 
person in the court, and a necessary member of it. And note the words 
of the statute West. 2. c. 30, for the origin of clerks of assize, &c. 
All justices shall have in their circuits clerks to enrol all pleas pleaded 
before them, like as they used to have in times past. And so it seems 
in reason, that the justices were before the clerks, and made clerks at 
their pleasure.” 

I do not mean to quit this argument without explaining the words 
“ prescription and usage,” above used; because it has been argued 
from them by the attorney-general, that this right of appointment was 


APPENDIX. 


455 


vested in the chief justice by a personal prescription. The term “ pre¬ 
scription” in this instance means this, that by the common law the right 
of appointment was necessarily vested in all the judges of the court, 
but that the personal right of appointment as exercised by the chief 
justice alone, was founded upon “ prescription and usage,” which trans¬ 
ferred that power which was originally in the whole court, to him indi¬ 
vidually ; exactly what we say has been done in the present case. Upon 
this part of the case, the authority already cited from Anderson* is ma¬ 
terial, as also the case of Brownlow v. Cop and Michell, Mo. 842. 
Brownlow was the prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas ; the 
crown appointed another person, and Brownlow brought his assize 
against the appointee of the crown. He waived his privilege, and 
brought his assize in the King’s Bench, The king directed his writ to 
the justices, reciting that he had by his patent granted the making of 
supersedeas’s to the defendant, and requiring the justices not to pro¬ 
ceed rege inconsulto. It was insisted that the writ should be quashed, 
and there was a long argument upon it. The mode of arguing does 
not exactly appear, but the crown admitted they had not the right, by 
entering into an undertaking with the court, not to appoint in future, 
thus clinging to their usurpation at the very moment they were ob¬ 
liged to admit that it was a usurpation. And an indenture was ac¬ 
tually executed to that effect. 

After all these authorities and all these principles, it might well be 
supposed that in England this question would be set at rest. But it 
was not so ; and the crown once more attempted to raise it in the case 
in Show P. C. cited by the attorney-general.f This was the case of 
Bridgeman v. Holt, reported also in Skinn. 354. And this case itself 
contains the principles upon which the common law right of the chief 
justice has been established. I wish to apprise you, gentlemen of the 
jury, that the uniform usage in England is, that the crown has no right 
to appoint, and in fact never does appoint, the officer called clerk of 
the Pleas, either in the King’s Bench, or the Common Pleas, or in the 
Exchequer. 

From the statement of this case of Bridgeman v. Holt by the attor¬ 
ney-general, your lordships might imagine that C. J. Holt had pleaded 
a prescriptive personal right, and not a right at common law. Now, 
the first thing material to be observed in that case is, that it was an ac¬ 
tion of assize, and the general issue was pleaded ; so that it did not 
appear from the pleading, whether the defendant’s claim rested on pre¬ 
scription or on common law. The whole case came out upon evidence, 
of which it will be necessary to trouble the court with the detail. The 
first piece of evidence given by the plaintiff was the patent from the 
crown. The defendant insisted that the office of clerk of the Pleas 
was not grantable by the crown, but that the right of appointment be¬ 
longed to the chief justice of the King’s Bench. And to prove this, it 
tfas shown that the business of the officer is to enrol pleas between 


Cavendish’s Case, 1 And. 152. 


t 111. 


-I 



(156 


APPENDIX. 


party and party only, that is to say, common pleas, and had nothing* to 
do with pleas of the crown : that all the rolls and records in this office 
were in the custody of the chief justice: that all the writs to certify or 
remove records in this clerk’s office are directed to the chief justice : 
and from the nature of the employment, it was insisted, that in truth 
lie was but the chief justice’s clerk : and that consequently the office 
must be granted by the chief justice. Thus, they first state the nature 
of the office, and then the particular reasons which gave the right of 
appointing to it, to the chief justice. “ And for further proof it was 
«h*wn by the records of the court, that for the space of 235 years past, 
this office, when void, had been granted by the chief justice.” It has 
been asked, why, if the chief justice had really this right by common* 
law, should he be so absurd as to go into evidence of the usage ? I 
would be glad to know whether there is any common law right claimed 
by the crown jn this case ? Or has such a right been abandoned by the 
counsel for the crown ? For the whole of this day, and part of yester¬ 
day, has been employed by them in giving evidence of the usage. If the 
crown have no common law right, then let them give up any claim to it; 
and if they have, they cannot lay any stress upon Lord Holt’s going 
into evidence of usage. The fact is, that Lord Holt did no more than 
the attorney-general has done in this very case, or than any prudent 
man would. He first showed his common law right, and having the 
usage in his favour, he offered that usage in evidence in farther confir¬ 
mation of his common law right. But 1 undertake to show that his 
right was determined on the ground of common law, and not of any 
personal prescription. 

In the first place,, his counsel “ insisted upon the mere right of grant¬ 
ing the said office, viz., that it was not grantable by the crown, but was 
ad office belonging to the chief justice of the King’s Bench, and 
grantable by him.” In the next place, “ it was observed on behalf of 
the defendant, that in all these records produced and read in court, 
after the mention of the surrender to the chief justice, there are these 
words, ‘ to whom of right it doth belong to grant that office whenso¬ 
ever it shall be void.’ ” Again, “ it was further insisted and proved that 
there are, in the nature of clerks, three considerable officers of the 
Court of King’s Bench ; the first and chiefest is the clerk of the crown.” 
And here let me answer the objection that our argument would go to 
prove too much, as according to it the clerk of the crown ought also to 
to be appointed by the court. We mean only to say, that in the case 
of Common Pleas the court has such a right. The clerk of the crown 
(Shower 113) is the attorney-general and prosecutor of the crown, and 
is to draw all indictments, informations, &c.,in pleas of the crown, and 
tliis without the interference of the court. The crown might therefore 
justly enough say, that an office of this nature should be in its own dis¬ 
posal ; but yet even in that case, so strong was the leaning in favour of 
the general common law principle, that this clerk also was originally 
appointed by the court. Com. Dig. “ Courts.” B. 4. A statute was 
afterwards framed (15th Edward HI.) to this effect: “ It is consented 






APPENDIX, 


45 7 


that if any of tlie offices aforesaid (which are mentioned in the act) or 
the controller or chief clerk in the Common Bench or King’s Bench, 
by death or other case, be ousted of their office, the king, with the con¬ 
sent of the great men, &c., shall put another tit person in such office.” 
After the making of this statute, the king appointed the clerk of the 
crown, which he had never done before; and though the act has since 
been repealed, yet it having been considered as in this respect declara¬ 
tory of the common law, the crown has continued still to appoint the 
clerk of the crown in the King’s Bench ; but on the circuits the senior 
judge appoints the clerk of the crown. 

“ The second officer (say the counsel in the case in Shower) is the 
prothonotary or chief clerk for enrolling pleas between party and party 
in civil matters; he and his under clerks do enrol all declarations, 
pleadings, &c., in civil causes, especially where the proceedings are by 
bill. This clerk files in his office all the bills, declarations, &c., and all 
the writs of this court in civil matters are made by him and his under 
clerks, and tested by the chief justice; and‘he hath the custody of all 
returns of elegits, executions, scire facias’s, and the filing of all bills, 
every of which are, in the eye and judgment of the law, in the hands of 
the chief justice, whose clerk this officer is. 

“ The third is the custos brevium, who keeps all the rolls and records 
of judgments in this court, which are also said to be in the custody of 
the chief justice ; and this office, when void, is in his gift and disposal.” 

The defendant then insisted on the statute of Edward VI. against 
the sale of offices,* which contains a salvo to the two chief justices and 
judges of assize to dispose of the offices in their disposition, as they used 
to do, and so far recognizes the common law right of the judges. 

And then to prove the defendant’s title, the grant of the chief justice 
was produced and read and proved, and that the defendant was admitted 
and sworn. 

To answer all this evidence, there was produced the copy of an act 
of parliament made in 15 Edw. III., allowing the king, as already men¬ 
tioned, to fill certain places when vacant, and it was urged, that by vir¬ 
tue of this act, the king had the right of appointing to the office. 

Upon this evidence, the court declared they would nonsuit the plain¬ 
tiff. Now if this were a case in which the right of the chief justice 
had rested (as alleged) upon a personal prescription, it was a case to go 
to the jury, but if on the other hand, it were a right at common law, 
then it v/as a question for the court itself to decide. Having put the act 
of parliament out of the way, the court would nonsuit, because there 
was a clear common law right in the chief justice, whicli if not taken 
out of him by the act, would bar the plaintiff. The counsel for the 
crown did not deny, that if the act were out of the way, the court were 
right, but they insisted that it was impossible to get rid of the act, and 
prayed the court that it should go to the jury. The court, did wiiaG 
they ought not to have done, and did suffer it to go to the jury; and 
tiie jury found that this office did not pass to the crown under the act. 

* 5 and 6 Edward VI. c. 16. 


458 


APPENDIX. 


The plaintiffs counsel then tendered a bill of exceptions, on the 
ground that the court and not the jury ought to have judged of the act 
of parliament, which bill the court very properly refused to sign, inas¬ 
much as this was done at their own instance and desire, whereupon they 
went to the House of Lords. In the report of this case in Skinn. 355, 
it is said the counsel pressed it should go to the jury, and the judges 
accordingly left it to them. 

What then was the case of Chief Justice Holt,, on the whole of this 
trial ? Your lordships will recollect he was not hampered by any par¬ 
ticular pleading, but was allowed to give everything in evidence under 
the general issue. The opinion of the court clearly was, that (the act 
being once out of the way) there was a principle that enabled them to 
decide in favour of the defendant. This could only be a common law 
principle, which was a question for the court and not for the jury. The 
defendant did in evidence, what we have been obliged to do in pleading, 
that is, he showed a common law right in the court at large, and then 
a transfer of the exercise of that right by usage and prescription to the 
person of the chief justice. Had Chief Justice Holt spread his title out 
upon the record, he would not have called it a prescription. It was no¬ 
thing more than an usage. He would have stated his title exactly as 
we do here, namely a right at first inherent in the court, but by usage 
to be exercised by the chief justice. 

There is a great distinction between prescription and usage. A pre¬ 
scription implies a grant: an usage implies no such thing. On the con¬ 
trary, the idea of a grant would be inconsistent with it. An usage is a 
customary mode of modifying or qualifying an existing right. But in 
no case does it imply a grant. It is merely what becomes a practice. 
Hence it is not necessary, for the validity of an usage, or in order to 
constitute the practice of a court, to go beyond time of legal memory. 
Forty or fifty years, or any time which is long enough to show the court, 
that such a thing is the practice, will suffice. A course of the court 
when ascertained, is the law of the court, and is binding not only upon 
that court itself, but upon all other courts. 

We have been driven to strictness in pleading, and been obliged 
(perhaps fortunately) to state our title with a degree of accuracy^ to 
which Lord Holt was not bound. He showed in evidence first the law, 
and theu the usage grounding his own right. And just so have we done 
in pleading. In fact, the usage of a court must be decided by the court, 
and in Lord Holt’s case there could be no question for the jury upon 
that point. Had the question been upon a personal prescription, it must 
have gone to the jury, but the court negatived that supposition, by ex¬ 
pressing their determination to nonsuit the plaintiff. 

I think therefore that the case establishes two points for me : firsts 
that the defendant there set up and established a common law right in 
the court: and next, that besides that, he showed an usage to give that 
right to the chief justice, that is to say, an usage of which the court, and 
the court only were to judge. 


APPENDIX, 


459 


Tuesday , November 19* 

My lords and gentlemen of the jury,—The head of argument of which I 
treated yesterday, was the common law right of the court to appoint to 
this office, and in investigating that head, and the authorities referred 
to in support of it, I have endeavoured to show that the ground on which 
the right is vested in the chief justice of the King’s Bench and Common 
Pleas in England, must be a principle of the common law, which an¬ 
nexed the right to the court, and then an usage enabling the chief jus¬ 
tice to appoint, and that the right cannot be founded upon any personal 
prescription in the chief justice. I do not think it necessary now to re¬ 
capitulate these arguments. The last argument I submitted from the 
case in Shower, was, that the court could not have proceeded upon the 
notion of a prescription, inasmuch as they declared their intention of non¬ 
suiting, and would have done so, had it not been for the importunity of 
the plaintiffs counsel. 

In addition to that argument, I have a few more remarks to offer 
upon this case, which appear to me to be most material. If the title 
there relied upon had been a prescription against the crown, your lord- 
ships know it must have been founded upon the supposition of some¬ 
thing which the crown might lawfully grant, for every prescription im¬ 
plies a grant. The argument on the other side is, that it was not the 
usage of the court that was relied on, but a prescriptive right in the 
person of the chief justice. This right, if not derived from the court, 
must have been derived from the crown. It will be necessary therefore 
to probe this position, that the right is vested by prescription. 

Let me ask in the first place, ha d the king a right to make a grant of 
his power of nomination ? And secondly, if he had, might he have 
granted it to an absolute stranger, or was he bound to grant to one of 
the court ? If he had the right at all, it must be either generally and 
without restriction, or in the modified way I have just stated, namely, 
a right to grant to one of the court, and to no other. If the former is 
asserted, and if the proposition be, that the king has a right to grant to 
any person at his pleasure, I must beg leave totally to deny it; because 
I think your lordships will find, that where there are any certain rights 
and prerogatives remaining in the crown, and undeparted with (I am 
now, for argument’s sake, supposing the right of nominating this officer 
not to be out of the crown,) these are original and inherent prerogatives 
of the crown, and cannot be divested by the constitution of the King’s 
Bench. If this particular right was vested in the crown, it was so vested 
for the public benefit, and could not be departed with. If this be so, 
though the king, it is true, might grant the office, yet it is equally true, 
he could not grant to another the power of granting the office. For 
I lay it down as a principle of law, that though the king may depart 
with his lands, which are his private property, and though as to then 
there might therefore have been a prescription against him even prior 
to the nullum tempus act, yet from the nature of the thing, such pre-. 
^cription must be confined to such things as the king may lawfully grant. 



appendu. 


400 

It is so laid down by Lord Mansfield in the case of the Mayor of Hull 
v. Horner, Cowper, 102. He refers to the case of the King v. Brown, 
and says, that even before the nullum tempus act, he had always held, 
that there might be a prescriptive right against the crown. But he 
confines it to cases where the crown might lawfully grant.—This indeed 
is so clear upon principles of reason, of analogy, and of policy, that it 
is scarcely necessary to cite authorities in support of it. To instance a 
familiar case ; if I appoint a trustee to act for me, he may do anything 
necessary for the execution of his trust, but he cannot transfer the trust 
itself. That is a personal confidence, and cannot be conveyed to an¬ 
other. So it is with regard to the crown, which is a public trustee. 
Though it may grant an office to any person it thinks proper, yet it can¬ 
not transfer the right of nominating to such office. If (as we are now 
supposing) the right of appointing to the office of clerk of the Pleas 
was not attached to the Court of King’s Bench, and if the exercise of 
it in the crown was not confined to any member of that court, then it 
must be an original right in the crown, for the benefit of the public, and 
therefore the crown must be disabled from granting it. Your lordships 
will find, that the moment anything is vested in the crown, which in the 
contemplation of law is for the public good, that moment is the crown 
disabled from transferring it. In the case of the temporalities of a 
bishop, they are vested in the crown during the vacancy of the see. It 
does not very clearly appear that the public benefit requires that such 
a right should not be granted away. It might at first be well supposed, 
that it was a sort of private property in the crown, and accordingly it 
was not originally clear, but that the crown might have transferred it. 
But yet it is declared by Magna Charta, that these temporalities shall 
not be sold. From the moment it was ascertained by this declaration, 
that such a prerogative was a public one, from that moment was the 
crown incapacitated from deputing it. And Lord Coke, in his com¬ 
mentary on Magna Charta (2 Inst. 15.) lays it down, that there can be 
no prescription for these temporalities against the crown. The same 
thing is laid down, Com. Dig. Grant G. 2. And indeed this is strictly 
consonant to the spirit of our civil polity. And in confirmation of this 
doctrine,! beg to refer your lordships to the case of Colt and Glover v. 
Bishop of Coventry. Hob. 140, 154. The court there say, “ But a 
lapse (as I have said) is an act and office of trust reposed by law in the 
ordinary, metropolitan, and lastly in the king (who is cerium et stabili - 
mention justiticB) the end of which is to provide the church of a rector, 
in default of the patron ; and yet as for him, and to his behoof. And 
therefore, as he cannot transfer his trust to another, so cannot he di¬ 
rect the thing wherewith he is trusted, to any other purpose; and 
therefore, though the king or bishop may suffer the church to stand void 
(winch yet is culpa ) yet they cannot bind themselves, that they will not 
fill the church, for that were injuria et malum in se; and therefore 
spall be judged in law, in deceit of the king ; for eadem mens prcesum- 
itur Regis, quce est juris, et quace esse debet , prczsertim in dubiis /’ J 
Allow me now to apply this general analogy of the law to the present 


APPENDIX. 


401 


question, namely, whether the case in Show, could have been decided 
on the ground of a personal prescription. To suppose it was, necessa¬ 
rily infers that the right of nominating to the office was a prerogative 
not departed with by the crown; and then the claim of the chief justice 
must nave been this, that the king being intrusted with this right, had 
delegated that prerogative to another person ; just in the same manner 
(though less in degree) as if he had delegated the right of appointing 
his judges or other ministers of justice. iS T ow this, I say, he could not 
do; because such a prerogative is for the public advantage, and cannot 
be deputed. 

I have put this supposed right of delegation alternatively, either as 
a general one, or as modified in a particular way. Let us now consider 
the second supposition, viz., that the right is to be granted only to one 
of the court. What is it that has so restricted it? If there be nothing 
in the nature of the court or the common law to restrict it, I do not 
know what else cao. And if it be by the common law, the right of 
granting the office necessarily belongs to the court. It is impossible 
for ingenuity to> confuse this argument or to get out of it. If this sup¬ 
posed prescription be not void as asserting a general right of delegation 
m the crown, it must inevitably admit a right in the court. 

The cases in England have decided this very point; that is, that 
there is a right by common law in the court, but that it is exercised by 
one only, namely the head, of the court. Whether this be said to be 
by prescription or by usage, (if it be granted there is a common law 
right in the court,) is a matter perfectly indifferent, as to either the 
rights of the parties, or the determination of the question. If it were 
clear that there was a right in the court, though it might be erro¬ 
neously stated in the pleading, that the chief justice’s right is founded 
on usage instead of prescription, yet still the crown having no right, 
this quo warranto information could be wholly unwarrantable. 

It appears from the pleadings here, that the chief baron is the chief 
judge of the Pleas side of the Court of Exchequer; that the chief 
baron has named this defendant as the officer, and that he has been 
admitted as such by the entire court. So that if I am right in saying 
there is a common law right in the court, and that that right is some 
way or other (no matter how) vested in tlqe chief judge, there is here 
a complete title admitted upon the record. Nay,if it be even alleged that 
that right never could be taken out of the court, yet still I say there is 
a clear title on this pleading, because the court made this appointment. 

A prerogative process to question such an appointment is an abuse 
of the prerogative. What concern is it of the crown’s, in what manner 
the court have exercised their right ? They have exercised it, and the 
crown has nothing to do with it. See whether the grantee of the chief 
baron has not done what he was bound to do in pleading. The attor¬ 
ney-general admitted that if this right was by common law in the 
court (and this will be most material in another part of this case) it 
could not be taken from them by grant, or prescription, or anything 
short of an act of parliament. It is true, that being once vested in the 

2 g 


462 


APPENDIX. 


court, it could not be divested out of them, either by grant, or by pre¬ 
scription, which implies a part. Therefore when we plead our title ac¬ 
cording to the nature of this proceeding (not give it in evidence as we 
were entitled to do, and as was done in the case in Shower) as a title 
arising from a usage or practice of the court it must avail; for although 
no usage can divest the court of its right, yet it may modify such right, 
and determine by whom in particular it may be exercised. This is not 
a grant, nor a prescription, but the usage (which is the law) of the 
court; a law to be recognized not only by the court itself, but by all 
other courts. 

The argument of the attorney-general against this claim is, first that 
no such usage in point of fact exists; and secondly, that it is not a 
lawful usage. I have already mentioned, that a usage differs from a 
prescription, in that prescription supposes a grant, whereas usage does 
not, but on the contrary, cannot be supported by a gr,ant. And in 
proof of this distinction, I beg leave to refer to Gateward’s case, 6 Rep. 
61, where it is said, “that every prescription ought to have a lawful 
beginning, but otherwise of a custom; for though that ought to be 
reasonable, it need not be intended to have a lawful beginning, as cus¬ 
tom of Gavelkind Borough, English, &c. The common law is the 
general usage of the entire land; but a particular usage (such as 
Gavelkind,) is only a reasonable act which need not to have had such 
beginning as a prescription.” And therefore when we talk of the 
usage of a court it is totally different from a prescription, and cannot 
have originated in a grant; it grows merely by admitting such a cer¬ 
tain practice. Nor is it necessary, that such a usage of a court should 
exist from time immemorial; for this would be tying up the hands of 
a court, and preventing it from altering its practice, however inconve- 
nient^it might be found to be. Indeed it is monstrous to assert that 
the usage of a court requires to be from time beyond memory ; and the 
contrary was expressly decided in DeverelTs case, 2 Anstr. 624. The 
question in that case was whether Deverell should be confirmed in the 
place of clerk in the remembrancer’s office. It was relied on itliat he 
should not be passed over, and it was argued, as here, that the usage 
insisted on against him, was not a usage from time immemorial. But 
Chief Baron Macdonald’s answer to that is as follows: “ It has been 
argued that no usage can have effect to bind this question, unless such 
as could be legally set up as a prescription. I cannot agree to this 
argument. In offices in every court, new customs and new usages 
grow up, and get firm root by continuance much short of legal prescrip¬ 
tion.” It was not necessary for me to have cited this authority, because 
it stands to common sense, that a court of justice must cease to be such, 
where it is not at liberty to alter its own practice, and to appoint suck 
officers as it thinks fit. 

Upon this part of the case, your lordships will find that the argument 
of C. J. Treby in Owen v. Saunders, 1 Lord Raym. 163, is very mate¬ 
rial. He is speaking of the office of custos rotulorum v and supposes 
that he may have been originally named by the justices themselves, and 


APPENDIX. 


463 


that the clerk of the peace may have been nominated by him, with the 
consent of the court. His words are: “ The original of this office of 
cust. rot. is not very clear ; but in all probability, the trust of the con¬ 
servation of the Rolls was committed to one of the justices of the peace, 
and then he was called custos rotulorum : and probably by the consent 
of his brethren he nominated the clerk of the peace. He is called so, 
13 Hen. IV., 10 pi. 33. And in Dyer 175 b. it is said that it seems in 
reason that the justices were before clerks. 12 Ric. 2, c. 10, calls 
him clerk of the justices, and appoints him wages. 2 Hen. VII. 1, 
first makes mention of the custos rotulorum, &c.” Now, in this, two 
things are important to be observed. First, that all this is alleged to 
be within time of memory; the establishment of justices of the peace 
is so, and consequently so must this usage. And secondly, that the 
power of nominating the clerk of the peace may have been given by 
the justices at large, and by their consent, to one of their brethren ; 
and this, by a usage of the court. And it is also to be remarked, that 
no doubt is here entertained of the legality of such usage. The only 
doubt is as to the fact. 

1 take it, therefore, that the usage of a court with respect to matters 
within its jurisdiction, makes the law; it binds the court itself and 
every other court: and every court is bound ex officio to take notice of 
it, just as much as if it were the law of that particular court. It is a 
thing not questionable—not traversable—nor for a jury to decide upon 
—but is a question for the consideration of the court. This is clearly 
exemplified in Lane’s case, 2 Rep. 16, a very strong case. By the 
general law of the land, the lands of the king cannot pass unless by 
grant under the great seal. But nevertheless, by the usage of the 
Court of Exchequer, the king’s lands may pass under the seal of 
that court. And this is so, not by any general law of the coun¬ 
try, but by the usage of that particular court, which, in that in¬ 
stance, makes the law. Lane’s case arose in the Common Pleas, and 
three points were there resolved by the court. First, “ that although 
by the common law no grant of any land by the king is available or 
pleadable but under the great seal of England, and although in this 
case it was not alleged that in the Exchequer the common course of 
the court was to make such leases under the seal of the court; yet it 
was adjudged that the said lease under the Exchequer seal was good, 
and that by the common usage of the Court of Exchequer: for the 
customs and courses of the king’s courts are as a law, and the common 
law for the universality thereof doth take notice of them: and it is not 
necessary to allege in pleading any usage or prescription to warrant 
the same. And so it is holden in L. 5, E. 4, 1, a. and 11 E. 4, 2 b. 
that the course of a court is a law: and in 2 R. 3, 9, b. it is holden that 
every court of Westminster ought to take notice of the customs of the 
other courts : otherwise it is of courts in patrid” Now, after reading 
this case, I cannot help feeling and complaining of it as a monstrous 
hardship in the present case, upon the defendant, upon the Court of 
Exchequer, aud upon this court, that by this proceeding we should 



464 


APPENDIX. 


be called upon to establish in evidence the usage of the Court of Ex 
chequer. Suppose the present defendant were an officer of this court, 
and your lordships had admitted him, the crown claiming the right of 
appointment: by the very same right of prerogative by which this in¬ 
formation is filed, it might have been filed in the case I have just put. 
The one is as much a supreme court as the other ; both have the same 
right of admitting their own officers: and both are equally uncontrollable 
in the exercise of that right, unless by way of appeal. Suppose, then 
the attorney-general had thought fit to do so in the case of an officer 
of this court, and this without any claim on the part of the crown (for 
we arq now supposing the right to be absolutely vested in the court), 
and suppose he had called on your lordships to send up an issue to the 
jury, to try what was the course of the court, what would your lordships, 
what would the jury, what would the public say to so gross an abuse of 
the royal prerogative ? I put it to the good sense and feeling of the 
counsel for the crown themselves, whether they will involve this court, 
the Court of Exchequer, and the public, in the monstrous consequences 
of such a proceeding—whether they will put upon this court the odious 
task of deciding upon the customs of another superior court—or whe¬ 
ther they will expose the Court of Exchequer to the humiliation of 
submitting to such a censure ? I appeal to them, whether they will 
persevere in such a course of proceeding, when they see it thus dilated 
into its monstrous disproportions, until it at length assumes the gigantic 
form of unconstitutionality ? If your lordships think it right, send your 
tipstaff into the Court of Exchequer, to drag the judges of that court 
from the bench, in order to give this court an account of their conduct. 
If this proceeding is to be persevered in, we shall be compelled to pro¬ 
duce one of the learned judges of that court to prove the usage ; if the 
court can submit to the indecency of such a spectacle, if we must be 
forced to do so, we shall produce Mr. Baron George, and your lordships 
shall see what has been the usage of the Court of Exchequer, and in 
what various instances rights and duties, which were originally vested 
in the court, have been exercised by a particular individual of it. 

Every court is bound to notice the usage of another. If it were 
stated in a book of entries, that by the requisition of the court, the 
chief baron had the right to a certain appointment, would not that be 
considered as a sufficient authority ? That is what is done on the re¬ 
cord here: for it is stated that the officer was admitted. If we are obliged 
to resort to the proof of that usage, we shall show, that the taking and 
signing of all recognizances—the signing of all writs after judgment— 
of every writ of Habeas Corpus —the examining and signing of every 
taxed bill of costs—the signing of every writ of privilege, of all com¬ 
missions of rebellion, all venditioni exponas’s , all writs of supersedeas, 
and all injunctions in cases of estrepement, are, by the usage of the 
court, confined to the chief baron alone. Every writ of error directed 
to the Court of Exchequer is, by the same usage, allowed by the chief 
baron alone. On his allocatur alone the clerk of the Pleas is autho¬ 
rised to transmit the record, and without his allocatur he cannot do so. 



APPENDIX. 


465 


In all those cases in which any patronage is vested in the court, (for 
example, in the appointment of crier and tipstaff,) by the usage of "the 
court, such patronage is exercised by the chief baron alone. And uot 
only in the Court of Exchequer, but in every court in England and Ire¬ 
land where any patronage is exercisable in the appointment of its 
officers, it is, in point of fact, exercised by the chief judge alone. And 
yet we are now told, it is impossible that this can be done. 

I hope the court will not consider me as endeavouring to create any 
unnecessary embarrassment in this case. I have stated what appears to 
me to be a most serious one, growing out of this proceeding. I trust 
the opposite party will tell the court how they are to get out of it. 
There is an issue joined here upon the usage of the Exchequer: do the 
counsel for the crown desire that a jury shall try that fact ? Are they 
desirous of diverting a jury from its proper functions, for the pur¬ 
pose of ascertaining a right, which is admitted to exist in the court 
itself? We are ready to do in this respect as your lordships shall 
think fit. 

I have now considered this case as resting upon the common law, and 
answered the cases which have been put by the attorney-general on 
the ground of prescription, as also the argument, that the right, sup¬ 
posing it to exist in the court, could not be exercised by a particular 
member of it: and I hope I have given to them a satisfactory answer. 
It now remains, in the first place, to advert to the argument, that there 
is something peculiar in the constitution of the Court of Exchequer, 
which makes the law there different from what it is in any other court, 
and then to observe upon the alleged usage contended to exist in favour 
of the crown. 

In the first place, it is said, that by the peculiar constitution of the 
Court of Exchequer, the chief baron is not the keeper of the records 
of that court, nor even all the barons : but that the custody of them is 
in the treasurer and barons ; and that in consequence of this peculiar 
constitution of the court, the records of the Exchequer must be consi¬ 
dered as a parcel of the king’s treasure, and as the muniments of his rights. 
Before I go into the examination of this argument, I should be glad to 
know in what manner, and with wffiat view, it is to be applied? Is this 
a case between the crown and the Court of Exchequer ? Or is it, under 
the pretence of a prerogative investigation, an experiment to try whe¬ 
ther there can be a right in any third person, such, for instance, as the 
treasurer ? I cannot conceive that the latter is the meaning of this 
information, because that would be an abuse of the prerogative, which 
I think the persons concerned for the crown would be incapable of ad-, 
vising. I must take it, therefore, that this is a proceeding, not for the 
purpose of knowing whether there be a title in the treasurer, but whe¬ 
ther, by the constitution of the court, they can hold this title against 
the crown. 

Now, as to the argument that the Court of Exchequer is established 
for the recovery of the king’s debts, and that suitors can only sue in it 
on the fiction of being the king’s debtors, and that, therefore, the 


466 


APPENDIX. 


common pleas of the Court of Exchequer are not the pleas of the sub¬ 
ject, but the king's pleas. I hold all this to be the very quintessence of 
prerogative pedantry. If this doctrine were to be pushed to its extent, 
it would go to show that in the King’s Bench also, the appointment of 
the clerk of the Common Pleas ought to be in the crown. For in that 
court also, a party is obliged to sue under a fiction, namely, that the 
defendant has been guilty of a breach of the peace. In like manner, 
in any case, the party, if he fails, is liable to be amerced “pro Jalso 
clamore” and he would thus be subject as a debtor to the king. . If 
fictions of law are to be resorted to, and every remote degree in which 
the rights of the crown maybe supposed to be affected is to be brought 
in aid of the claims of the prerogative, there is not a muniment of public 
justice which may not be considered as part of the king’s treasure. 

It was objected by the attorney-general, that the argument drawn 
from the keeping of the records would prove too much, because it would 
go to show that the custos brevium should also be appointed by the 
court. The custos brevium of the King’s Bench in England is in the 
appointment of the crown, but not the custos brevium of the Common 
Pleas. And what is the reason of the difference ? Because in the 
latter, the writs are original writs; whereas in the King’s Bench they 
are judicial, or at least the greater part of them, and of consequence, 
in illustration of the common law doctrine, and according to what is 
laid down by Lord Coke, the court which pronounces the judgment has 
an interest in having these writs properly entered. They therefore ap¬ 
point the clerk of the writs, where the writs are judicial, but not other¬ 
wise. 

Now as to the constitution of the Exchequer. If the chief baron of 
that court has not, from the usage of the court, the right of appoint¬ 
ing to this office—if, I say, he is precluded from it by the particular 
constitution of the court, it is to be inquired upon what other officer it 
could devolve. If the common law be as I have stated, it could not 
devolve upon the crown: it must devolve upon some other officer. It 
would suffice to answer to this part of the case, that there is no claim 
set up by any other officer of the court, but that the claim is made by 
the crown alone. It is to be observed, that no such argument can 
arise upon the issue on the usage of the crown, but only on the second 
issue. And on this issue, the only way in which it can affect the right, 
is by showing that by the constitution of the court it cannot be in the 
chief baron. If it cannot be in him, I cannot imagine any other person 
in whom it can be, except either the chancellor of the Exchequer, or the 

treasurer of the Exchequer. As to the first of these officers_he is no 

judge of the common law side of the Exchequer, and never was. He 
never exercised any judicial function on that side of the court. The 
pleas at the common law side are before the barons only : but on the 
equity side they are before the chancellor, treasurer, and barons. And as 
to the custody of the records, the chancellor of the Exchequer never had 
it, either actually or constructively. The only function which he ever 
exercises on the law side of the court is, that he is holder of the seal, 


APPENDIX. 


467 


there being but one seal for both sides, law and equity. As therefore 
he holds the seal, he must necessarily use it for the law proceeding. 
But yet, so careful was the law that this circumstance of his holding the 
seal should not entitle him to interfere in the law side, that by his oath 
he is precluded from using the seal in any law proceeding without the 
consent of the treasurer or chief baron, or some other baron : and in 
no act connected with the judicial power of the court can he use the 
seal without their concurrence. The form of his oath is, “ the king’s 
seal you shall carefully keep, and shall seal no process except such as 
shall be ordered by the treasurer or chief baron, or some other baron, 
except only original process.” So that the chancellor of the Exchequer 
could not of himself have used the seal in appointing to this very office, 
unless by applying to the chief baron. 

Now by what law is it, that the chief baron is in this instance sub¬ 
stituted for the entire court ? Is it by act of parliament ? or by pre¬ 
scription ? No: but by the usage of the court. But I only use this at 
present for the purpose of showing, that the accidental circumstance of 
their being but one seal induced the necessity of disabling the chan¬ 
cellor from using it without the warrant of the chief baron. 

Another argument relied on is, that the chancellor of the Exchequer 
is the person who appoints to this office of clerk of the Pleas in Eng¬ 
land. I suppose it is so : but it is equally true that the king does not 
appoint to it. The office of chancellor of the Exchequer in England 
is in its nature different from ours. For a long series of years, the 
person exercising that office in England has also filled the office of un¬ 
der-treasurer of the Exchequer in England. The act of parliament 
giving him precedence, describes him as such. In all grants and acta 
of parliament where he is named, he is so described. And in the writ 
which issued for inquiring into the state of the public records in the 
country, and in which the two chancellors are named, the one (the Eng¬ 
lish officer) is described as chancellor of the Exchequer and under 
treasurer, and the other simply as chancellor of the Exchequer. 

The treasurer was originally the head of the law side of the Exche¬ 
quer, and so long as he continued so, he had in virtue of that situation 
the appointment to such offices as were in the disposal of the law court. 
He has, however, from a remote period ceased to be the head of the 
law side; but in England, from the commencement, when he had that 
right of appointment, a prescription has prevailed in his favour of con¬ 
tinuing to appoint; and from that period to the present, there has 
been an uniform exercise of the right by him in England ; whereas 
throughout all that period, no such right has been exercised by the 
treasurer in Ireland. Nor is this an argument to be lightly dealt with. 
The chancellor of the Exchequer of Ireland has not been treasurer in 
Ireland, except by accident; the two offices have never gone together 
as they have done in England. The chancellor of the Exchequer in 
Ireland cannot have any law right; for a period of 400 years the 
offices of treasurer of the Exchequer and chancellor of the Exchequer 
have been separated. And hence, the chancellor of the Exchequer in 


468 


APPENDIX. 


Ireland never 1ms exercised the right of appointing to any of the law 
offices of the Exchequer. So that the chancellor of the Exchequer in 
Ireland has no common law right, and so far from having a prescrip¬ 
tion in his favour, he has never even set up a claim. The chancel¬ 
lor of the Exchequer in England on the other hand has always held the 
office which entitled him to grant the offices of the law side of the 
court 

it seems that originally, by the constitution of the Exchequer, this 
right of appointment would belong to the treasurer as head of the law 
side, and as long as he acted as such, the common law would have con¬ 
tinued to him that right; but when he ceased to act, then of course it 
ought to devolve upon the next acting officer. At what period exactly 
the treasurer ceased to act, is involved in obscurity. It was not proba¬ 
bly all at once, but by degrees ; and thereupon the chief baron became 
the acting chief law officer. Had the treasurer continued ever since to 
this day, it is not for me to say whether or not he would still have had 
an actual right; that is a question with which I have nothing to do. 
I do not mean to pronounce any opinion as to whether the chief baron 
in England could controvert the right of the English treasurer ; but he 
certainly could controvert the right of the crown. In England the chief 
baron would have a very different case from that which we make. He 
would have to say, that an officer who originally had this right of ap¬ 
pointment, in virtue of his office, and who though he had ceased to 
exercise his office, had yet continued to exercise such right of appoint¬ 
ment, was not entitled to appoint j perhaps he could not say so. But 
in this country an officer, such as the chancellor of the Exchequer, who 
never had the right, could not now in the first instance set up a claim. 
So that as to any argument drawn from the chancellor of the Exche¬ 
quer in England, it is wholly (to use a phrase of my learned friend the 
attorney-general) a chimera. No claim is here made by the chancel¬ 
lor of the Exchequer, or on his behalf; the only ground of the case is 
an alleged right in the crown. And this right is stated, not as one de¬ 
rived from and incident to the right of appointing the chancellor of the 
Exchequer, but as inherent in the crown, and as part of its prerogative. 

It remains to consider how far the treasurer can affect the right of 
the chief baron. Originally the treasurer perhaps had this right; but 
when he ceased to act, the chief baron, as the acting chief judge, then 
became entitled to appoint. In confirmation of this, allow me to men¬ 
tion the case of the creation of a new court. For example, the creation 
of a new Court of Error in this country by the act of 1800.* A new 
officer thereupon became necessary, namely, the clerk of the Pleas of 
that court. And so strongly felt was the force of the common law 
principle that the right of appointment would belong to the head of the 
court, that the act of parliament makes a special provision giving the 
right of appointment to the crown. Here is a direct legislative recog¬ 
nition of the common law right. This provision was considered as a 


* 40 Geo. III., c. 39. 



APPENDIX* 


4fi9 


great hardship, and the chief justice of that day, (the late lamented 
Lord Kilwarden) complained of it, as an injury done to him, that he 
and the court were deprived of the right. And here I may observe, 
that in the former Court of Error, the chancellor who was the head of 
it, nominated his secretary to be the clerk. 

Having premised so much, I shall proceed to consider how far, ori¬ 
ginally, the treasurer was a judge of the common law side of the 
Exchequer. The statute de scaccario , made in the 51 Hen. III., st. 5, 
wect. 7, enacts, “ And the warden of the king’s wardrobe shall make 
accompt yearly in the Exchequer in the feast of St. Margaret; and 
the treasurer and barons shall be charged by oath, that ttiey shall not 
attend to hear the pleas or matters of other men, while they have to do 
with the king’s business, if it be not a matter that concerneth the king's 
own debt.” And the 8th section adds, “ And the king commandeth 
the treasurer and barons of the Exchequer, upon their allegiance, and 
by the oath that they have made to him, that they shall not assign any 
in their rooms, but such as this act meaneth of, and that the Exche¬ 
quer be not charged with more persons than is necessary.” Here the 
treasurer and barons are alluded to as the persons who have the nomi¬ 
nation of such people in the Exchequer ; the chancellor of the Exche¬ 
quer is not mentioned. 

An act made 12 Rich. II., c. 2, to regulate offices, enacts as follows: 
“ Item, it is accorded, that the chancellor, treasurer, keeper of the 
privy seal, stewards of the king’s house, the king’s chamberlain, clerk 
of the rolls, the justices of the one bench, and of the other, the barons 
of the Exchequer, and all other that shall be called to ordain” (this word 
“ ordain” comes upon one rather by surprise, for the attorney-general 
has been insisting that ordination is not an appointment), “ name, or 
make justices of peace, sheriffs, escheators, &c., shall be tirmly sworn 
that they shall not ordain, name, or make justices of peace, &c., for 
any gift or brocage, favour or affection, &c.” Not a word here of the 
chancellor of the Exchequer. 

The 2nd Hen. VI., c. 10, makes all officers who appoint clerks, an¬ 
swerable for such clerks. 

The next recognition of these officers is in stat. 6, Edw. 1, c. 14, 
whereby the king grants to the citizens of London that disseisees shall 
have damages by recognizance of assize, by which they recover. “And 
it shall be commanded unto the barons and to the treasurer of the Ex¬ 
chequer, that they shall cause it every year to be levied by two of them 
at tneir rising after Candlemas.” 

Then comes the 10th Edw. I. addressed, “ The king to his treasurer 
and barons of the Exchequer, greeting.” And in sect. 10, “ Moreover 
we provide, that all debts whereunto the sheriffs make return that the 
debtors have nothing in their bailiwicks, &c., shall be estreated in Rolls, 
to be delivered to faithful and circumspect men, which shall make en¬ 
quiry thereof, after such form as shall be provided by the treasurer and 
barons.” This, your lordships observe, is a regulation as to common 
pleas returns. 


470 


APPENDIX. 


In 13 Edw. I., c. 8,it is directed that the writs mentioned in it shall 
be enrolled, and at the year’s end the transcripts sent into the Exche¬ 
quer, that the treasurer and barons may see the sheriff’s answer. 

Maddox, in his History of the Exchequer, thinks it was the part of 
the treasurer to act with the barons in matters relating to the revenue. 

I shall now show that these powers have long since ceased on the 
part of the treasurer. Your lordships will find in the statute 20 Edw. 
III., c. 2, “ In the same manner we have ordained, in the right of the 
barons of the Exchequer, and we have expressly charged them in our 
presence that they shall do right and reason to all our subjects, great 
and small; and that they shall deliver the people reasonably, and with¬ 
out delay of the business they have to do before them, without undue 
tarrying as hath been done in times past.” The barons of the Exche¬ 
quer, your lordships will observe, are here enjoined, as the only persons 
concerned. In remarking upon this statute, Lord Coke, 4 Inst. 115, 
eays, “ Hereby it appeareth, that to them belongeth doing of right and 
reason in legal proceedings.” 

So the statute 31 Edw. c. 12, constituting the Court of Exchequer 
Chamber, recognises the barons as then the only judges of the law side. 

Again the 5 Rich. II., c. 10, after reciting that certain complaints 
had been made of the officers of the Exchequer, gives to the barons 
full power to hear such complaints. 

Lord Coke, 4 Inst. 118, in treating of the equity side of the Exche¬ 
quer, says, “ The judges of this court are the lord treasurer, the chan¬ 
cellor, and barons of the Exchequer: generally, their jurisdiction is as 
large for matter of equity as the barons in the Court of Exchequer have 
for the benefit of the king by the common law.” 

And in 4. Inst. 109, he lays it down, “ All judicial proceedings, accord¬ 
ing to law in the Exchequer, are coram baronibus, and not coram the- 
saurario et baronibus. 

In the Bankers* case (82) Lord Somers, (who we know was not in¬ 
terested to enlarge the jurisdiction of the barons), speaking of the court 
of Exchequer, says, “ but if it be considered in its several parts, as to 
what is intrusted distinctly to the treasurer and chamberlains, and what 
is put under the direction and government of the barons, it comprehends 
distinct courts, and such as have no proper communication one with 
another; though, perhaps, as to some things, the treasurer, chamber¬ 
lains, and barons are intrusted jointly: as my Lord Chief Justice Coke 
4 Inst. 105, says they are with the custody of the judicial records.” 
The passage of Lord Coke here alluded to is, “ Albeit the barons, as 
hath been said, are the judges, yet the treasurer of the Exchequer is 
joined with them in keeping of the records, whereof the barons are 
judges, for they are parcel of the king’s treasure.” This passage of 
Lord Coke relates entirely to an information of intrusion into the kind’s 
lands, which, of course, are the king’s treasure ; and these records are 
kept not in the office of the clerk of the Pleas, but of the treasurer’s 
remembrancer. 

All writs of error, it is true, are, in the King’s Bench and Common 


appendix. 


471 


Pleas, directed to the chief judges of those courts, whereas in the Ex¬ 
chequer they are directed to the treasurer and barons. But that we 
are not to be concluded by the form of the writ appears from 2 Inst. 
881, where Lord Coke, speaking of the writ ex parte tails, says, “ The 
writ in the register and F. N. B. ubi supra , is, coram thesaurario et 
baronibus, nostris de scaccario, but it ought to be coram baronibus de 
scaccario , according to the act, and that the rather, because the barons 
are (as hath been said) the soveraigne auditors of England, and here¬ 
with agreeth Fleta.” So, though on the treasurer’s ceasing to be the 
head of the court, the form of the writ should have been altered, yet it 
continued to be the same. But notwithstanding the direction of writs 
of error to the treasurer and barons, the records are in the custody of 
the barons only, and so in ail records, removed by writ of error, it ap¬ 
pears on the face of the pleadings. The writ itself mentions the judg¬ 
ment to be given by them only: and though directed to the treasurer 
and barons, yet it is allowed by the chief baron only, he being, in fact 
and of right, the head of the common law side of the court, and upon 
his allocatur alone is it that the clerk transmits the record. There are 
a variety of records in the Exchequer, which are the king’s treasure, in 
which the king has an interest, and which are in the custody of the 
treasurer’s remembrancer; there are others in which the crown is also 
interested, and which contain proceedings before the barons; and, thirdly, 
there is a class called common pleas, or pleas between subject and sub¬ 
ject, and they are in the custody of the barons, and of the clerk of Com¬ 
mon Pleas, as their clerk. But to argue from the records being in the 
treasurer’s custody, as part of the king’s treasure, is absurd, because 
the treasurer originally kept the records of the King’s Bench and Com¬ 
mon Pleas also, so far as the king’s rights were concerned; so that if 
this argument be well founded, it would give to the crown or to the 
treasurer the right of appointing also the clerks of the pleas in those 
courts. But the treasurer never claimed that right, nor has he, since 
he ceased to be a common law judge, ever claimed to appoint the clerk 
of the pleas in the Court of Exchequer. The offices of chancellor of the 
Exchequer and of treasurer have been united immemorially in England, 
and the oath of the chancellor of the Exchequer in England is different 
from that of ours. It contains no restriction, as ours does, as to the 
use of the seal. Here there is no claim by the treasurer, and, in fact, 
no such officer has for some time existed, although the form of the writs 
continues to include him. The English treasurer is called in records 
by various names, sometimes the king’s treasurer, sometimes the trea¬ 
surer of England (2 Madd. 41). The treasurer of Ireland is sometimes 
called lord treasurer, treasurer, and the 33rd of the king calls him high 
treasurer; and he has been sometimes called treasurer of the Exchequer, 
and sometimes our treasurer of the Exchequer. The judicial duties can¬ 
not be put in commission. What is become of them ? I cannot see. 
The last grant is to one of the Boyle family ; and the office of vice¬ 
treasurer was formally abolished in the person of Mr. Clements, in 
1795. The king now appoints a receiver-general. By the act of last 


472 


APPENDIX. 


■ session consolidating the offices of chancellor of the Exchequer in both 
countries, the same person is to execute the duties of both, which shows 
the impossibility of his being a judicial officer on the common law side 
of the Irish Exchequer. 

Now as to the length of time which has been urged on the part of 
the crown, it will be conceded, that if this right was at first vested in 
the court, it could not be taken out of them but by act of parliament, 
or by prescription: no length of time short of a prescription can deprive 
them of it. A court of justice is not like an individual; no encroach¬ 
ment on its rights can bar them. Littleton (S. 413) says, “ no dying 
seized (where the tenement come to another by succession) shall take 
away an entry. As of prelates, abbots, priors, deans, or of the parson 
of a church, or of other bodies politio, &c., albeit there were twenty 
dyings seized, and twenty successors, this shall not put any man from 
his entry.” And Co. Litt. 250. a. says, this is applied to bodies politic, 
whose successors come in in the post, and not to natural persons, whoso 
heirs come in in the per. And the same is also laid down, 2 Inst. 154. 
io5. “ Wherefore should not the successors of a bishop, dean, abbot, 

prior, &c., be as well in the per, as the heir by descent ? and the reason 
thereof is, for that the heir cometh in by his ancestor, and therefore a 
descent shall take away an entry, and the warranty of the ancestor shall 
barre the heir ; but in case of succession, a dying seized taketh not 
away an entry, nor the warranty of the predecessor doth bind the suc¬ 
cessor.” Here, too, I have to mention a case which occurred in this 
court, the King v. Carmichael. The crown had appointed the clerk of 
the peace for the county of Carlow in the time of Henry VIII., and 
from that time downwards. Mr. Bruen, as cus. rot. granted to Car¬ 
michael ; the attorney-general filed an information against him ; Car¬ 
michael pleaded the facts, and had judgment against the crown. The 
sole argument was, whether the clerk of the peace derived under the 
custos ; for if he did, it was not disputed that the custos would have the 
appointment; and the right being shown to be in the custos, the length 
of time was held to make no title for the crown. That decision has 
been acted upon ever since. 

I shall now apply myself to the question of usage, and will at present 
suppose there is a common law right in the court. I must suppose that, 
or the question of usage would be immaterial; for otherwise there must 
be judgment against the chief baron’s grantee. This alleged usage is 
urged as amounting to a legal prescription. It is not contended on 
the part of the crown that there is any act of parliament to give them 
this right. If they mean to rely upon usage as evidence, whence to 
presume an act of parliament, I say that is illegal. The case of Hew- 
ett v. Parish of St. Audrew, in this court, is said to favour such a pre¬ 
sumption. That case was afterwards on in Chancery, and it was stated 
to my Lord Redesdale (who then presided in that court) that such a 
doctrine had been acted on. It struck him with surprise, and he ob¬ 
jected to it what cannot be answered, that if such a doctrine were al¬ 
lowed, there would be an end of all the ancient and received notions of 



appendix 


473 


prescription. According to them, no prescription can be admitted, ex¬ 
cept a legal commencement could be presumed; but if an act of par¬ 
liament is to be presumed to make a new law, there is an end of all re¬ 
striction upon prescription. Why is it that a prescription de non ded- 
mando , is not valid ? because it could not have a legal origin. But we 
have only to suppose an act of parliament, and it could. In fact, such 
a presumption as this would amount to a power of legislating, and say¬ 
ing that length of time shall have the effect of making that law, which 
otherwise could not be so. Lord Redesdale denied there was any pre¬ 
cedent for such a doctrine, and refused to act upon it. 

But even if this were a case in which the court would submit such \ 
presumption to a jury, it is hopeless to look for any evidence to warrant 
it. It is an usage against the common law, which I conceive could 
never have arisen in this country. The common law was introduced 
here, in the 12th year of King John’s reign, and it abrogated every 
usage contrary to it; and as time of memory is previous to that period, 
it follows that in this country there can be no prescription against the 
common law. In the case of Tanistry (Davies 37, 38, 39, 40 ) it was 
held that the introduction of the common law into Ireland abolished 
these customs. And the same would have been the consequence of its 
introduction into Wales: but for the purpose of preventing ft, the stat. 
of Wales (27. H. VIII. c. 26. s. 27.) appoints commissioners to inquire 
into the customs of Wales, and expressly saves them. And accordingly, 
in this country the custom of gavelkind prevailed before the introduc¬ 
tion of the common law, as appears from Sir James Ware’s antiquities, 
but it was then abolished. Gavelkind is good at this day in England, 
because it is a part of the local common law. Any custom that might 
have a legal commencement, may prevail in Ireland as well as in Eng¬ 
land: but the common law of England, when introduced here, abolished 
all customs at variance with it, notwithstanding those customs might be 
legal in England. If previously to that period, a subject had a grant of 
lands, that would not have been disturbed ; in like manner of anything 
not contrary to the common law. It is to be remembered, that we are 
now taking for granted the right is in the court: it is contended th&i 
there is a prescription to take it out of them, and put it in the crown. 
Now I say that cannot be: that is a prescription which could not have 
a legal origin, and if not, it cannot have any validity. 

Further, the pleading of this as a prescription in the crown, presup¬ 
poses it has no common law right. For where a prescription is set up 
for anything, it is an admission that the law does not give it. Noy. 20, 
Pells v. Towers. Com. Dig. Prescription, F. 4. Wilson v. Bishop of 
Carlisle, Hob. 107. 

Now, gentlemen of the jury, a word to you upon this question of 
usage. The evidence of it has been derived from a book of extracts 
agreed on both sides to be read. In the first place, there is no evidence 
of any exercise of this alleged right on the part of the crown until the 
year 1403, 254 years within time of memory. The first document 
avowing by whom any appointment was made, is in 1375, and that was 





474 


APPENDIX. 


an appointment by the court. The first appointment by the crown was 
in 1403. Where the actual entries do not appear, to show by whom 
the earlier appointments were in fact made, the first presumption is that 
they were made according to law. If then the defendant be right in 
saying the court has a common law right, this court is bound to pre¬ 
sume, in the absence of the records, that the earlier appointments were 
made by the court, who thus had the right. I admit it is a presump¬ 
tion liable, like all others, to be rebutted by contrary evidence, but it is 
good till so encountered. And in analogy to this, in the case in Shower, 
where Chief Justice Holt, in aid of his common law right, referred to 
the usage, he only produced the entries for 250 years, although the en¬ 
tries went farther back ; and for this reason, that it was to be presumed 
the earlier entries were in conformity with the right. 

Gentlemen of the jury, I have now to call your attention to the first 
of these entries, that is an order for payment to Bromley in 1332. 
Gentlemen, it has been argued that all these entries, showing that pay¬ 
ment was made to this officer out of the king’s treasury, are so many 

S roofs that the appointments were made by the crown. But you will 
nd that in the case where the appointments were made by the court, 
the entries are also for payment out of the king’s treasury. So that 
this circumstance affords no evidence who it was that appointed. The 
crier of the Court of Exchequer, who is confessedly appointed by the 
chief baron, is also paid out of the treasury. I take it therefore that 
the case may be cleared of all these entries. 

The next entry is in 1334, 8th and 9th Edward III., and is for pay¬ 
ment to John de Carleton as clerk of the Pleas. This John de Carle- 
ton was also appointed chamberlain. The patent appointing him to this 
latter office appears, but no patent is to be found appointing him clerk 
of the Pleas. Here is an entry stating him to hold both offices, and 
yet the patent for one appears, and not for the other. It cannot be said 
that the patents are lost; for here is one. If we suppose him appointed 
by the court, it is natural enough that there should be no entry of the 
mode of his appointment, because nothing more would be necessary than 
his admission by the court. But, on the other hand, if the crown had 
appointed, a patent would have appeared, and that not being the case, 
the inference is irresistible, that he was not appointed by the crown. 
The next document is a%i order for payment to Simon de Legaston, 
# dated 14 Dec. 1342, and in the same year is one to Robert Baynard. 
It is here material to remark, that during this period there appears to 
have been a scramble for this office, and the appointments are involved 
in confusion. This circumstance of two orders for payment to two dif¬ 
ferent persons in the same year sufficiently shows it. 

In 1344, John de Hacksey appears to be sworn in before the trea¬ 
surer and barons, and the same John de Hacksey is again sworn in in 
1357 ; there is no reason to show why. There was evidently some con¬ 
test for the office during that interval. And here let me observe, that 
the evidence of the swearing in has been preserved ; then why not the 
evidence of an appointment by the crown, if any ? 




APPENDIX. 


475 


Then, in 1352, is an order for payment to John de Carleton, the 
same who was formerly appointed. You will recollect, gentlemen, that 
to support the allegation of the crown, of a prescription, there must be 
an uniform uninterrupted usage. After all this comes an order, in 
1355, for payment to Robert Baynard ; and again, 1363, for the same 
person, who held till 1375. It will not be contended that, up to this 
period, there is any evidence of an appointment by the crown, or indeed 
by any person. There is some evidence against the crown. 

Now comes the entry in 1375, the first which is clear as to the mode 
of appointment. It is not surprising that, after the state of confusion 
in which the title to the office had been involved, it should be thought 
expedient to put an end to all doubt, by the ministers of the court join¬ 
ing in an appointment. Accordingly, in this entry it is stated, that 
John de Penkeston “ stood ordained” by the chancellor and treasurer 
of Ireland, and the barons, and others “ our ministers of our Exche¬ 
quer aforesaid.” Much has been observed upon this appointment. 
First, it is said, it was made by the lord chancellor of Ireland, and not 
the chancellor of the Exchequer. Let it be so; it is indifferent to me. 
But then a record is produced, to show that Robert de Emeldon was 
chancellor of the Exchequer, in order, by a subsequent entry, to show 
this appointment must have been by him. It clearly appears, however, 
that this first instance of an appointment is not by the crown, and that 
it was thought necessary that the treasurer, barons, and other ministers 
of the court should concur. Many expedients have been resorted to, 
to get rid of this record. It is said, the wind was unfavourable, the 
packet could not sail—the king’s letter did not arrive, and the office 
was of so much importance, and the necessity for filling it so urgent, 
that all the principal officers met, and appointed. It is curious, that 
this appointment was made in 1375, and the entry was not made till 
two years after. Had the steam packet been delayed all this time ? 
Another remarkable fact is, that no entry is to be found of the appoint¬ 
ment itself, though it was certainly made by the court. And the king, 
when he orders payment to this officer, not only recites his appoint¬ 
ment by the court, but expressly states that to be his title. It is con¬ 
ceded, that though an interruption in the possession will not destroy a 
prescription, yet an interruption of the right will. Here then is an entry 
on the part of the crown, acknowledging that Penkeston was lawfully 
ordained by the court. It cannot be said the law officers had not time 
to communicate with the crown before this entry was made. Now if 
the appointment was an extraordinary one, would not the king have as¬ 
serted his prerogative ? He does not do so. So that, in short, this is 
a prescription set up by the crown, to be maintained by uninterrupted 
usage, and the very first entry brought to prove it is destructive of the 
right. I really cannot help commiserating my learned friend who is to 
reply to me, for the hopeless task he has to encounter, of persuading 
you, gentlemen of the jury, that this is a clear, uniform, uninterrupted 
usage. 

Thi 3 appointment was in 1375. It i« a curious fact in natural his- 


470 


APPENDIX. 


tory, and one that deserves to be particularly recorded-, that the wind 
blew in the same direction for eight and twenty years; for so long this 
Penkeston held the situation. 

In 1403, it appears that William Sutton was appointed by the crown, 
and in 1423, (1 Hen. VI.) he was confirmed. This is the first instance 
in which the crown exercised the right. The grant of the oifice, 1 
Hen. VI. recites an inspeximus of letters patent to Sutton, recogni¬ 
sing the appointment of Penkeston, and concludes by confirming them, 
“ any grant of the said office by our chancellor of the Exchequer or 
any other person or persons notwithstanding.” So that this first in¬ 
stance of any appointment by the crown, begins by recognising the ap¬ 
pointment by the court, and concludes by being validated by a non 
obstante clause. I protest, it is really difficult to continue an argument 
upon such a thing. If we suppose a right at any time in the chancel¬ 
lor of the Exchequer, that instaut we destroy the king’s claim: for the 
argument is not that the right is in the crown, as incident to the power 
of appointing the chancellor of the Exchequer: but that it has a dis¬ 
tinct inherent, independent right by prescription. Is a grant by the 
crown with a non obstante clause, is that, I ask, to be evidence for the 
crown ? It is not, it cannot be, evidence of anything but an unconsti¬ 
tutional usurpation. The non obstante doctrines, as we know from 
our history, were so rooted as to be admitted even in the courts of law. 
whether right or wrong, anything could have been done by a non obstantt 
clause. It is wonderful our liberties could have survived sy.ch a doc¬ 
trine. If there had not been a buoyancy in the British constitution 
which made it incapable of sinking, if there had not been a spring in 
the minds of the English nation too strong to be subdued, if they had 
not been predoomed to be a free people, their liberties could never 
have survived so deadly an instrument of tyranny and usurpation. It 
was urged and acted upon till the revolution, and to use the language 
of the luminous and classical commentator on the laws of England, “ it 
did not abdicate Westminister-liall, till James the Second abdicated the 
throne.” And shall such a thing as this, be sent up in our days to a 
jury, as evidence to the right of the crown ? 

Up to the period of Penkeston’s appointment, all, as I have observed, 
was confusion. After this appointment there was none—no small evi¬ 
dence that where the court acted, their appointment was acquiesced 
in as rightful. But from the appointment of Su4on, the confusion 
begins again. James Blakeney is next appointed, it does not appear 
by whom, or when. 

The next entry is in 1430,27th July—a very important one. It states, 
that the crown had granted to Robert Dyke the office of chancellor of 
the Exchequer, “ And moreover by reason that the said office of clerk 
of the pleas in our Court of Exchequer is member and parcel of the 
said office of chancellor of the green wax and annexed to the same 
and the same office of clerk of the pleas has been held by Robert de 
Emeldon as chancellor of the said Exchequer, as may appear of re¬ 
cord, and also by other persons as we are informed,” it then grants to 






APPENDIX. 


477 


Dyke the office of clerk of the pleas. Now, suppose it were true that 
the office of clerk of the pleas is member and parcel of the office of 
chancellor of the Exchequer, it destroys the right of the crown, because 
on that supposition the right belongs to the chancellor of the Exchequer: 
and if it be false, then it amounts to an acknowledgment that the crown 
did not claim by virtue of its prerogative. “ And that the same office 
of clerk of the pleas has been held and occupied by Robert de Emeldon, 
as may be of record in our treasury, and by other persons, as we are 
informed.” This is the crown's statement of its own title. Now, I 
say, that whether that statement be true or false, it equally destroys the 
right of the crown. ,> The crown is clearly looking for arguments to sup¬ 
port its usurpation. Robert Dyke appointed Stannaher and another 
his deputie|. The recital of that appointment is, that Robert Dyke was 
nominated in 1 Hen. VI. At the very time of the grant to this Dyke, 
the office of clerk of the pleas was full, by William Sutton, to whom it 
was previously granted. So that the crown having appointed Sutton 
to the prejudice of the right of the chancellor of the Exchequer, then 
grants to Dyke the office of clerk of the pleas, as parcel of the very 
same office of chancellor of the Exchequer; and the reason is “ because 
it was so held by Robert de Emeldon,” who had been in 1348, (a hun¬ 
dred years before), locum tenens of the treasurer. He is so recited 22 
8c 23 Edw. III. in a patent granting to William de Burton. When 
the crown had the right, the entry is made so early as 1348. In this 
grant of 1431, therefore, the crown rests its title on the office of clerk 
of the pleas being part of that of chancellor of the Exchequer, and re¬ 
fers to Robert de Emeldon, as the only instance in support of its being 
so: and upon referring to that, it appears he was also locum tenens of 
the treasurer, an office which might of itself have given him a right: 
and all this when the office was full by Sutton, the crown's own grantee. 
Even after this assumption of right, that is to say, in the year 1432, 
and in 1436, there are orders for payment to Sutton: so that this claim 
of title was clearly an usurpation by the crown, and not only that, but 
an usurpation by the crown on its own grantee. The whole proceed¬ 
ing is a complicated tissue of folly and usurpation, and affords no evi¬ 
dence whatever of any right. 

After this, (1438) John Hardwicke is appointed chancellor of the 
Exchequer and clerk of the Pleas, and in the same year, notwithstand¬ 
ing this appointment, the chancellorship of the Exchequer is given to 
John Baynard. Again, in the same year, on the 5th of June, this of¬ 
fice is granted to Richard de Waterton. Here are three different per¬ 
sons appointed by the crown in one year. 

In the same year (1438) is an order to admit Cunningham and White 
as deputies, and on the 14th of December, in that year, an order to pay 
Sutton, the very man who was appointed in 1403. And yet, after all 
this confusion, it is gravely said, that this is a case of irrefragable, uni¬ 
form, and consistent usage. It is really astonishing, that with such 
documents before them, the counsel for the crown should venture to 
state them as evidence of an unMerrupted possession in the crown. 

2 h 


478 


APPENDIX. 


I hold in my hand the draft of an act of parliament, which was pre- 
lented to the House of Commons, before my lord chief baron could lay 
his case before the house. It was carried hastily and precipitately 
through that house, and presented to the lords on the very same day. 
It was read a first time—it was ordered for a second reading, and it 
would have been carried there also on the third day, but for one noble 
lord. This act, as it was first framed, and had nearly passed, recited, 
“ Whereas the office of clerk of the Pleas in his majesty’s Court of Ex¬ 
chequer in Ireland is an ancient office; and whereas the said office has 
hitherto been held under the appointment of his majesty and his prede¬ 
cessors.” This really looks as if there had been some misgiving on the 
part of those concerned for the crown, that they could not maintain an un¬ 
interrupted usage, and therefore would not venture to state it to be im¬ 
memorial. But the House of Commons, when they passed this statute, 
must have imagined there was such an usage. If, instead of the words 
used, the expression had been, “ Whereas the crown has now and then 
enjoyed,” the act would never have passed. However it was passed, 
the house having conceived there was an immemorial usage. It was 
thrown out in the Lords, and the new act which has been passed, does 
not recite any enjoyment by the crown. That was retracted, because 
it could not be maintained ; and yet they now bring forward to influence 
a Dublin jury, what they had not the audacity even to assert to the 
legislature! 

Gentlemen, there are a number of other entries. 29th September, 
1439, Waterton is appointed clerk of the Pleas. 1st October he is 
sworn in in Chancery, and a writ issues from the chancellor to the barons 
to admit him. Is this a lawful mode of appointing ? 

In 1445 is a patent from the crown, confirming the deputy of Hard- 
wicke. Then there is a grant of the office of chancellor of the Ex¬ 
chequer and clerk of the Pleas to Hardwicke and Shelton by authority 
of parliament. They were also appointed collectors of customs. The 
“ authority of parliament” means this, that these officers’ fees being 
charged upon the customs, this could only be by authority of parlia¬ 
ment. 

In 1448, we find a grant of the offices of chancellor of the Exche¬ 
quer and clerk of the Pleas to Birmingham and Fitz Robert. Then an 
order to pay Fox and Powel as deputies. In 1451, Birmingham and 
Fitz Robert apply to be allowed their fees. Next is an order to pay 
Browne as their deputy. Then in 1452, an order to pay Toole, the 
deputy of Birmingham, and another to John Dennis in 1458. 

In 1460, we find a grant to Pickering of the office of clerk of the 
Pleas. This is said to be “ by bill of the lieutenant himself and by au 
fchority of parliament.” Now if a presumption is to be made of an act 
of parliament, this would probably be relied on as such by those con¬ 
cerned for the crown. We can show the meaning of this authority of 
parliament. The Duke of York, the father of Edward the Fourth, was 
then lieutenant in Ireland. It was thought a desirable thing on the 
part of Henry the Sixth, who was then king of England, to induce the 


APPENDIX. 


479 


Duke of York to accept the lieutenantcy of Ireland, in order to get him 
out of the way. He accepted the situation, but determined to fortify 
himself in it; for we find from Cox’s History of Ireland (160) that he only 
consented to take it, on the express conditions, first, that he should be 
lieutenant for ten years; secondly, that he should receive the whole 
revenue, without accounting ; thirdly, that he should have treasure from 
England: fourthly, that he should let the king’s lands to farm ; and 
fifthly, that he should appoint to and dispose of, all offices at his plea¬ 
sure. And now I make the gentlemen a present of the authority of 
parliament. 

The next appointment is by the crown to Delahide and Dartas. And 
there is a special act of parliament made for the purpose of ratifying 
that appointment. This single fact demonstrates that the crown had 
Ao right. If the king was entitled, why should he pray the legislature 
to give him what he had before ? Will it be said that at that time 
there was any act of parliament enabling the crown ? What now be¬ 
comes of this presumption ? What becomes of the king’s inherent right ? 
Gentlemen of the jury, if it be possible to have a plain document show¬ 
ing that up to a certain period the crown had no right, this act of par¬ 
liament is that document. The crown cannot get out of it: it is vain 
to try. It cannot be said the act is for the purpose of enabling the 
two offices to be held together; that was often done before. No, gentle¬ 
men, it was clearly and manifestly for the purpose of enabling the 
grantee of the crown to hold against the general rule of law. 

From this period till the statute of Henry VII. there is but one ap¬ 
pointment, namely, to Woffer. When, or by whom that was made does 
not appear. It may be presumed to have been by the court. The 
statute of Henry VII. * was then passed, making the judges dependent 
upon the crown. If while they held during pleasure, and while the non 
obstante doctrine continued, the judges had questioned the king’s right, 
they could not have prevailed; for the crown had the power by a non 
obstante to compel the admission of its officer. Whilst the non obstante 
claim existed, it was just the same thing as if it was exercised. Arguments, 
therefore, drawn from the acquiescence of the judges during that period 
weigh nothing. Would it, I ask you, gentlemen, have been advisable 
for them to go to law with the crown, while they were removable at its 
pleasure ? What do you think would have been their fate, if they had ? 
Do you think that my Lord Chief Baron O’Grady, if he had held during 
pleasure, would have set up the present claim ? We know from history 
that Lord Coke lost his office for asserting his common law right, and 
insisting upon the appointment of Filazer in his court. It is sometimes 
Accounted for otherwise; but this was his real offence; and it is so 
stated by Blackstone, and in the life of Lord Coke, in the Biographia 
Britannica. We now, thank God, live in better times. The affairs of 
this country are no longer considered as of the same provincial insigni¬ 
ficance in which they were formerly held; and the rights of the court 


10 Hen. 7, C. 2. 


480 


APPENDIX. 


and of the subject in this country are on the other side of the watei 
held as sacred as the rights of Englishmen. I am far from insinuating 
that even here there would be any disposition to take advantage of the 
dependent situation of a judge, if he were dependent. I sincerely be¬ 
lieve there is not an individual in the profession, or in the community, 
more incapable of stooping to a base or unworthy action than his 
majesty’s attorney-general. But to talk of acquiescence on the part' 
of judges in former times, as affording a presumption in favour of the 
crown, is ridiculous; because the whole history of England from the 

{ >eriod of the union of the Houses of York and Lancaster to the Revo- 
ution, is nothing but a series of usurpations by the crown on the rights 
of the people. Ware’s history shows the usurpations committed on the 
rights of the treasurer and chancellor of Ireland, and when they were 
spoliated, it is not surprising that those of the judges should. It was 
not till the 22nd year of his reign, that the judges in Ireland were made 
independent of the crown; and in addition to this, from the time of the 
Revolution to the present, all the grants of this office from the crown 
have been in reversion, so that no vacancy has occurred to act upon, 
before the present appointment. 

Gentlemen, I have exhausted my own strength and your patience. 

I shall not attempt to recapitulate. Our case rests upon the common 
law: we claim the same rights as the judges in England. As to an 
uninterrupted usage in the crown, gentlemen of the jury, if you think j 
there is evidence of it, if you are ready to find upon your solemn oaths, 
that which has not been so much as asserted to the legislature, let it be 
40 , and in God’s name find a verdict for the crown. 

















































